Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies in the medicine of ancient India"

See other formats






of tlje 

JVcahcmg of ^chtctm 









V .^fJ BY 

a/p. RUDOLF HOERNLE, CLE,, \'^^^' 

Ph.D. (Tubingen), Hon. M.A. (Oxford), 
late principal, calcutta siadrasa 










Our knowledge of the Medicine known to the ancient 
Indians is at present extremely limited. I was made pain- 
fully aware of this fact in the course of preparing my edition 
of the two old Indian medical tracts preserved in the well- 
known Bower Manuscript of the fifth century a. d. The 
exigencies of that edition led me to a closer study of Indian 
Medicine, and the present treatise on its osteological doctrines 
is one of the firstfruits of that study. 

Probably it will come as a surprise to many, as it did to 
myself, to discover the amount of anatomical knowledge which 
is disclosed in the works of the earliest medical writers of India. 
Its extent and accuracy are surprising, when we allow for 
their early age — probably the sixth century before Christ — 
and their peculiar methods of definition. In these circum- 
stances the interesting question of the relation of the Medicine 
of the Indians to that of the Greeks naturally suggests itself. 
The possibility, at least, of a dependence of either on the 
other cannot well be denied, when we know as an historical 
fact that two Greek physicians, Ktesias, about 400 B.C., and 
Magasthenes about 300 B.C., visited, or resided in, Northern 

No satisfactory knowledge of human anatomy can be 
attained without recourse to human dissection. Of the 
practice of such dissection in ancient India we have direct 
proof in the medical compendium of Susruta, and it is 
indirectly confirmed by the statements of Charaka. It is 
worthy of note, however, that in the writings of neither of 
these two oldest Indian medical writers is there any indi- 
cation of the practice of animal dissection.^ Whatever 

^ The only mention of an animal subject is in connexion with 
training in surgery. Thus 'puncturing' is to be practised by the 
medical pupil ' on the veins of dead animals and on the stalks of 
the water-lily'; similarly, 'extracting,' on the pulp of various kinds 
of fruit and ' on the teeth of dead animals '. 

a 3 

•?^5 4-i 


knowledge of the structure of the human body they possessed 
would seem to have been derived by them from the dissection 
of human subjects. And, whether or not cases of such dissec- 
tion were frequent, their surprising proficiency in osteology 
argues a considerable familiarity with the bones of the human 
body. As to the Greeks there is indubitable evidence that an 
extensive practice of human dissection, on dead, and even 
on living subjects, prevailed in the Alexandrian schools of 
Herophilos and Erasistratos in the earlier part of the third 
century B.C. But their knowledge of anatomy appears in 
some particulars, such as the nervous and vascular systems, so 
much in advance of that of the early Indians, that, if there 
was any borrowing on the part of the latter from the Greeks, 
it must have taken place at a very much earlier period, in the 
time of Hippokrates and his immediate followers — that is to 
say, in the second half of the fifth century b. c. 

This conclusion is confirmed by the chronological indi- 
cations, no doubt more or less vague, given to us by the 
Indian tradition which places the earliest Indian medical 
schools of Atreya and Susruta at some time in the sixth 
century B.C., a date supported by the Vedas. This being so, and 
consideriug that we have no direct evidence of the practice 
of human dissection in the Hippokratic school, but know of 
the visit, about 400 B.C., of Ktesias to India, the alternative 
conclusion of a dependence of Greek anatomy on that of 
India cannot be simply put aside. On the other hand, there 
is some indirect evidence that the Hippokratics were not 
entirely unfamiliar with human dissection ^ ; and once admit- 
ting the practice of such dissection among both the early 
Greeks and the early Indians, the general similarity of 
standard in their knowledge of human anatomy may well be 
conceived without the hypothesis of an interdependeuce. In 
order to be able to verify a dependence of either upon the 
other, we require the evidence of agreement in points which 
are both peculiar and essential in the respective systems. It 

^ On this and other points touching Greek anatomy, see Dr. 
Puschmanu's History of Medical Education. 


is, in part at least, with this object that the present essay on 
the osteology of the ancient Indians has been prepared. It 
presents the Indian side of the evidence with respect to that 
particular department of anatomy. The Greek side of it yet 
remains to be exhibited ; and in the absence of it, as well as 
of my competence for the task, I have entirely abstained 
from complicating my subject with references to any ancient 
osteology other than Indian, lest the presentment of the 
latter should be unduly biased. 

I am tempted, however, to offer one or two passing obser- 
vations. No summary of osteological doctrine, such as we 
find in the writings of Charaka and Susruta, appears to exist 
in any of the known works of the earlier Greek medical 
schools. If this is the case — and I am writing under correc- 
tion — it greatly adds to the difficulty of making any satisfac- 
tory comparison. There exists, however, a somewhat similar 
osteological summary in the Talmud (see the Note, p. viii) ; 
and as the Talmudic anatomy is admittedly based on the 
anatomy of the Greeks, the summary in question may perhaps 
be taken to reflect the contemporary Greek doctrine on the 
subject. It is ascribed to the fii-st century a.d. ; but certain 
points in it, such as the inclusion of ' processes ' and cartilages 
to make up its total of 248 bones, seem to point to its being 
rather a survival of the system of the Hippokratic school- 
In any case, however, in its method and details of classification 
it differs materially from the Indian ; and if it may be taken 
in any way as a representative of Greek doctrine, it is difficult 
to believe in any connexion of the latter with the Indian. In 
this connexion a statement of Celsus, who is a fair exponent 
of the Greek osteology of the first century B.C., may be 
noted. Referring to the carpus and tarsus, he says that they 
' consist of many minute bones, the number of which is un- 
certain ', but that they present ' the appearance of a single, 
interiorly concave, bone ' ; and with reference to the fingers 
and toes, he says that ' from the five metacarpals the digits 
take their origin, each consisting of three bones of similar 
configuration ' (beginning of Book VIII). In the latter numera- 
tion of fifteen oints in the hands and feet, Greek osteology 


agrees with the Talmudic and Indian. As to the carpus and 
tarsus, the two views of ' a number of small bones ' and of ' a 
single bone ' are also found in the Lidian osteological sum- 
maries of Susruta and Charaka respectively ; the Talmudic 
summary implies a reckoning of eight small bones. 

Another object of the present treatise is to vindicate the 
true form of the osteological summaries of Charaka and 
Susruta. The former is at present in imminent peril of total 
displacement and oblivion in favour of a well-meant but very 
ill-considered substitute, to which the otherwise meritorious 
first edition of Charaka's Compendium by Gangadhar has given 
general cuiTency. But in this matter Indian medical history 
is only repeating itself. For, many centuries ago, the same 
misfortune overtook the osteological summary of Susruta, the 
true form of which is now totally lost from all manuscripts 
owing to its supersession by a falsified substitute which gained 
general acceptance through the great authority, apparently, of 
Vagbhata I, who once held a position in India somewhat 
analogous to that of Galen in the mediaeval medicine of the 
West. At a very early period in the history of Indian 
Medicine, owing to the ascendancy of Neo-brahmanism, which 
abhorred all contact with the dead, the practice and knowledge 
of anatomy very rapidly declined, and concurrently anatomical 
manuscript texts fell into great disorder. Attempts were 
made from time to time to restore and edit such corrupt texts ; 
but divorced from and uncontrolled by practical knowledge 
of anatomy, they could not but prove unsatisfactory. The 
earliest example of such an attempt which has survived is 
what I have called the Xon-medical Version of the summary 
of the osteological system of Atreya, which may be referred to 
the middle of the fourth century A. d. A more conspicuous 
example is the falsification of Susruta's osteological summary, 
under the authority of Vagbhata I, probably in the early part 
of the seventh century a. d. 

The latest example is presented in Gangadhar's invention, not 
quite thirty years ago, of what professes to be the osteological 
summary of Charaka. In this last-mentioned case, owing to 
the modernity of the substitute, it is not difficult, by an appeal 


to the consensus of still existing manuscripts, to expose and 
prove its baselessness. But that remedy is not available in 
the case of the osteological summary of Susruta, the genuine 
form of which has now disappeared from all available manu- 
scripts, and can be recovered only by a laborious application 
of textual criticism combined with an appeal to practical 
anatomy. But what has occurred in the case of the osteolo- 
gical summaries may have happened also to other parts of the 
ancient Indian texts concerned with anatomy and surgery. 
These texts requii-e careful scrutiny before they can be trust- 
fully accepted and cited as evidence. The present dissertation 
is offered as a first example of such an investigation. Of its 
success I must leave others to judge, only hoping that it may 
induce more competent hands than mine to take up and 
continue the inquiry. 

It only remains for me to offer my cordial thanks to the 
scholars who have given me their help in various ways : to 
Dr. W. Osier, Regius Professor of Medicine, who gave his 
valuable support to the publication of my monograph by the 
Delegates of the University Press ; to Dr. Arthur Thomson, 
Professor of Human Anatomy, who most kindly gave me the 
benefit of his skilled judgement on several difiicult points ; 
to Dr. P. Cordier, of the French Colonial Medical Service, to 
whose letters and publications I owe several useful hints ; 
but especially to Dr. J. Jolly, Professor of Sanskrit and 
Comparative Philology in the University of Wiirzburg, and 
Dr. Hamilton Osgood, of Boston, formerly Lecturer at Jefferson 
College, Philadelphia, U.S.A.,^ who both did me the favour 
of carefully reading the whole of my manuscript, and supply- 
ing me with some valuable corrections and suggestions in the 
Text-critical and Anatomical Sections respectively. My thanks 
are due also to the authorities of the India Office for their 
liberality in granting a subvention towards the cost of publica- 
tion. For most of the illustrations in the Text I am indebted 

* His lamented death occurred on the lOtb July, 1907, while these 
pages were passing through the Press. 


to the skilful hand of my son. A few of them are borrowed, 

by permission, from Professor A. Thomson's Handbook of 

Anatomy for Art Students. The execution of the whole is 

another example of the well-known high standard of the work 

of the Clarendon Press. 

A. F. R. H. 
Oxford : July, 1907. 


The Talraudic osteological summary, referred to on p. v, is given 
in the Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. Anatomy, as follows : 

' The Eabbis declared that there were 248 members (bones) in 
the human body ; namely, 40 in the tarsal region and the foot 
(30 + 10 = 40); 2 in the leg (the tibia and fibula); 6 in the knee 
(including the head of the femur and the epiphyses of the tibia and 
fibula) ; 3 in the pelvis (ilium, ischium, and pubes) ; 1 1 ribs (the 
12th rib, owing to its diminutive size, was not counted); 30 in the 
hand (the carpal bones and the phalanges) ; 2 in the forearm (radius 
and ulna) ; 2 in the elbow (the olecranon and the head of the 
radius) ; 1 in the arm (humerus) ; 4 in the shoulder (clavicle, 
scapula, caracoid process, and acromion) — which makes 101 for 
each side, or 202 for both; 18 vertebrae; 9 in the head (cranium 
and face) ; 8 in the neck (7 vertebral, and the os hyoides) ; 5 around 
the openings [si'cj of the body (cartilaginous bones) ; and 6 in the 
key of the heart (the sternum).' (Oh. I. 8.) 

The identifications within brackets appear to be those of the writer 
of the article on Anatomy. Dr. Bergel, in his Studien iiber die 
naturwissenschaftlichen Kenntnisse der Talmudisten, hesitatingly 
identifies the last two items as genitals and cardiac appendices 
{Herzanhang, appendix auricularis 1). The identifications that I 
would suggest may be seen from the subjoined tabular statement. 

The Talmudic osteology does not, like the Indian, divide the 
body into three, but into two parts ; namely, (1) the trunk, inclusive 
of the four extremities, and (2) the neck and head. The trunk, 
again, is divided, (1) sagittally, into the two sides, right and left; 
and (2) coronally, into the back and the front. Hence arises the 
subjoined scheme : 





I. Tku-nk and 


The Two Sides 

1. Lower Limb 

a. phalanges 

. 15 

h. metatarsals . 


c. tarsals 

8 Uo (foot, tarsals) 

d. malleoli 


e. unidentified . 

. 10^ 

/. leg (tibia, fibula) . 

• 2 (leg) 

g. patella 

• M 

h. inner and outer tuberosities . 4 [■ 6 (knee) 

{. femur .... 

. l) 

k. ilium .... 


I. ischium 

1 ■ 3 (pelvis) 

m. pubes .... 

. 1 

2. Middle 

ribs .... 

. 11 (libs) 

3. Upper Limb 


a. scapula .... 

' -^1 

h. clavicle 

c. acromion process . 


- 4 (shoulder) 

d. caracoid process 


e. humerus 

1 (humerus) 

/. olecranon process . 

g. capitellum of humerus . 

• 1 

. IJ 

2 (elbow) 

h. radius and ulna 

2 (forearm) 

i. styloid processes . 


k. carpals 

I. metacarpals . 

. 8 
. 5 

^ 30 (hand) 

m. phalanges 

. 15. 

Total . 

. 101x2 = 202 

Back, or spinal column (exc. 


a. dorsal vertebrae 

. 12^ 

h. lumbar vertebrae . 


18 (vertebrae) 

c. sacrum, coccyx 


Front, or breast 

a. sternum and 

j 6 (key of hcait) 

h. costal cartilages 

Total of Trunk and Extieniities 



Brought forward 


Head and Neck. 

A. Head 

1. Cranium 
a. frontal bones 
h. parietal bones 

c. occipital bone 

d. temporal bones 

e. malar bones . 

2. Openings 

a. mouth (maxillaries) 
h. ear (pinna) 
c. nose (cartilage) 

B. Neck 

a. vei-tebrae 
h. windpipe 

Total of Head and Neck 
Grand total of Skeleton 




9 (head) 

5 (opening.?) 

[| 8 (neck) 







List of Illustrations .... 
Section I. Introduction: Chronological 

II. Text-Critical: the Records . . 19 

A. The System of Atreya-Charaka, §§ 3-25 

B. The System of Susruta, §§ 26-36 

C. The System of Vagbhata I, §§ 37-41 

D. The System of the Vedas, §§ 42-43 

„ III. Anatomical: Identifications . . 115 

A. The Four Extremities, §§ 47-54 

B. The Trunk, §§ 55-60 

C. The Head and Neck, §§ 61-71 

IV. Apparatus Criticus .... 185 

A. The System of Atreya-Charaka, §§ 72-87 

B. The System of Susruta, §§ 88-92 

C. The System of Vagbhata I, § 93 

D. Miscellaneous Texts, §§94-100 

Index 243 


. 79 

§ 30 To face 80 
§ 30 „ 80 
. 120 
. 121 
. 122 
. 122 



1. Diagiam of the Eye, in Sagittal Section. § 30 

2. Goddess Cliulakoka (from the Bharhut Stupa). 

3. Suchiloma Yaksha (from the Bhai'hut Stupa). 

4. The Human Skeleton. Front View. § 46 

5. The Human Skeleton. Back View. § 46 

6. The Bones of the Hand, and Styloid Processes. 

7. The Bones of the Foot, and Malleoli. §47 

8. The Forearm, and Olecranon Process. Anterior View, 

showing Great Sigmoid Cavity. § 51 . 

9. The Right Leg. Anterior View. § 51 . 

10. Patella. Dorsal View, showing Concave Surface. § 53 . 

11. Right Clavicle. Seen from the front and from above. § 55 

12. Diagram of Right Half of Shoulder-girdle. Seen from the 

front. § 55 

13. Left Scapula. Postei'ior View. § 56 

14. The Thorax. Anterior View. § 57 

15. The First and Sixth Ribs. § 58 

16. Diagram of Transverse Section of Thorax. § 58 

17. A Thoracic Vertebra. Lateral and Dorsal Views. § 58 

18. Vertebral Column. Lateral and Dorsal Views. § 59 

19. A Thoracic Vertebra. Seen from above. § 59. 

20. The Pelvis. Anterior View. § 60 . 

21. The Atlas. Viewed from above. § 61 . 

22. The Axis. Anterior View. § 61 . 

23. A Cervical Vertebra. Viewed from above. § 61 

24. Larynx, Tracliea, and Bronchi. Anterior View 

25. Profile of Skull. From the right side. § 63 . 

26. Outline of Base of Skull. Viewed from below. § 63 

27. Frontal Bone. Internal surface, showing frontal crest. § 63 

28. Occipital Bone. Internal surface, showing occipital crest 

§ 63 ...... 

29. Frontal Bone. External surface, showing Metopic Suture 


30. Superior Maxillary, showing Hard Palate. § 65 

31. Infei'ior Maxillary. From the left. § 65 

32. Front View of Skull. § 66 . 

33. Pinna of Right Ear. §71 









§ 1. Explanation of Terms : Medical Authors, and 

their Works 

1. The theory of the Ancient Indians regarding the skeleton, 
or the bony frame of the human body, has been transmitted to 
us in three different systems. These are the systems of Atreya, 
Susruta, and Vagbhata. 

2. Atreya, the Physician. Atreya was not so much a surgeon 
as a physician. He is said to have had six pupils ; and his 
teaching of medicine is said to have been committed to writing 
by all six in the form of a Samhitd, or Compendium. It may, 
therefore, antecedently, be expected that we shall find their six 
medical compendia to agree in all essential points. At present, 
however, no more than two of them are known to us. These 
are the Compendia of Agnivesa and Bheda (or Bhela), 

3. Charaka and DrixlhaMla. As to the latter, the Bheda 
Samhitd, we know, at present, of the existence of but a 
single manuscript (§ 12). The former, the AgniveSa Sanihitd, 
has had a changeful history. In its orig*inal form it has 
not survived, though it appears to have still existed in 
the eleventh century when the commentator Chakrapani- 



datta (§ .'2, cl. 11) quotes it.^ At jiresent it exists only in 
a redaction undertaken, at a much later date, by a Kashmir 
physician, called Charaka. He, however, appears never to have 
completed it. Possibly death may have intervened. In any 
case, the concluding portion of the redaction, about one-third 
of the whole work, was supplied, several centuries afterwards, 
by another Kashmir physician Dridhabala, the son of the 
physician Kapilabala. The entire compendium consists of eight 
sections {sthchia). The portion contributed by Dridhabala 
comprises, as we know from the same Chakrapanidatta,^ the 
last seventeen chapters of the sixth, and the whole of the 
seventh and eighth sections. In the preparation of this portion, 
Dridhabala, as he himself informs us,^ utilized a large number 
of existing treatises. Among these may have been Agnivesa's 
original Compendium, but his main sources, as a comj)arison of 
their respective works shows, appear to have been the Astdhga 
Samgraha, or Summary of Medicine, of Vagbhata I, and the 
ISiddna, or Pathologv, of Madhava. But Dridhabala did not 
limit himself to his complementary task : he also revised the 
l)ortion written by Charaka himself. He was, as he himself 
informs us in a passage at the end of the eighth section,* a 
native of a settlement [pura), called Panchanada, i. e. five-stream- 
land. In India the confluence of streams is apt to be treated 
as a sacred place of pilgrimage [ilrtJia) ; and there are there 
several such places called Panchanada. Anciently one of them 
appears to have existed in Kashmir, near the confluence of the 
rivers Jhelam {Vitasta) and Sindhu. Its place is indicated by 
the modern village of Pantzinor (lit. five channels), which lies 
close to what was the original site of that confluence, before its 
removal to its present site, in the latter half of the ninth 

^ e. g. in his glosses on tlie Treatment of Fever [.Jvara-cikitsita), 
Tubingen MS., No. 463, fol. 356 a, 1. 1. 

2 Ibid., fol. 534 6. 

^ See Caraka Samhitd, ed. Jivauanda Vidyasagara (1896), p. 827. 

■* The passage is omitted in Jivananda's edition of 1877, apparently 
by some accident. It is given in the edition of 1896, p. 930, ver. 78 ; 
aho in the edition of Gangadhar, p. 90, as well as in the edition of 
the two Sen, p. 1055. Its genuineness is attested by Chakrapanidatta's 
commentary, Tiihingen MS., No. 463, fol. 639 a, 1. 2. 


century, in the reign of King' Avantivarman. It is this Kash- 
mirian Panchanada, which probably was the home of Dridhabala,^ 
The early commentators of the eleventh and thirteenth centuries 
(e. g. Chakrapanidatta and Vijaya Rakshita) often refer to a Kash- 
mirian Recension [Kdhilra imthd) when commenting on passages 
of the earlier portion of the Compendium, i. e. the portion 
written by Charaka himself.^ The probability is that in all 
these cases the reference is to Dridhabala^s Revision of 
Charaka's work ; for in references to the concluding portion 
of the Compendium, Dridhabala, as a rule, is quoted by name 
as its author.^ It seems clear from their method of quotation 
that the medical writers of that period were fully aware of the 
exact share which Dridhabala had in Charaka's redaction of 
Agnivesa's original Compendium. At a still earlier period, 
Madhava, when he quotes Charaka's redaction in his Niddna, 
or Patholog}^, shows no acquaintance with the revised version 
of it made by Dridhabala. At the present day the latter's share 

^ See Dr. Stein's Translation of tlie Rajataraiiginl, ch, iv, 248, v, 
06 fi".; also his account of the removal of the confluence, vol. ii, pp. 239ff., 
419 ft'. The usual identification of Panchanada with the Panjab is 
untenable; for Dridhabala clearly indicates a locality (^pura), not 
a country, as bis home. Dr. Cordier, in his Recentes Decouvertes, 
identifies it with ' Panjpur au uord d'Attock, Panjab ', on the authority, 
as he has informed me jiiivately (letter of January 13, 1905), of ' au 
Indian NSgri map lithographed in Benares ' and of ' the Indian Post- 
Office Guide '. I am afraid he has been misled by his authorities. 
Dr. Stein, whom I asked to verify on the spot, writes to me (letter oi 
March 1, 1905) that there is no Panjpur in the region of Attock, nor 
in ' the latest edition of the Indian Postal Guide '. There is, however, 
an isolated ridge known as Panjpir, or ' Hill of the Five Pirs', in the 
Yusufzai Plain, NNW. of Attock, a Muhammadan place of pilgrimage. 
This appears to have caused the confusion ; but between Panjpir and 
Panchanadapur there can obviously be no connexion. See also my 
article on ' the Authorship of the Charaka Samhita ' in the Archir 
filr die Geschichte der Medizin, 1907. 

- e.g. Chakrapanidatta, on J vara-cikitsita, in Jiv. ed. (1896), 
pp. 455, 456 ; or Tubingen MS., No. 463, fol. 348 a, 1. 7 and fol. 348 6, 
1. 2. Also Vijaya Rakshita, on idem, Jiv. ed., pp. 453-4, in Madhu- 
kosa, Jiv. ed., p. 29 ; also on ArSaS-cikitsita, Jiv. ed., p. 549 (or ed. 
1877, p. 574), in Madhukosa, p. 71 ; again on Yaksma-cikitsita, 
Jiv. ed., p. 522, in Madhukosa, p. 95. 

^ e.g. by Cliakrapanidatta, in SCitra Sthana, ed. Harinath Vi.sarad, 
p. 123. Also by Vijaya Rakshita, in Madhukosa, Jiv. ed., pp. 84, 120. 
124, 147, 152, 162, 179, 180. 

H 2 


in the redaction of Charaka is practieall}- forgotten in India, and 
the whole work is there known simply as Charaka's Compendium 
{Caraka Samliitd). In the present dissertation it will always 
(unless otherwise specified) be refen-ed to imder that name. For 
all practical purposes it may be understood that Charaka's 
Compendium represents Atreya's system of medicine, as handed 
down by his pupil Ag-nivesa. At all events, this is certain in 
respect of the passages relating- to the bones of the human body. 
For these passages are contained within that portion of the 
Compendium which is the production of Charaka himself; and 
the existence as early as the sixth century B.C., of the osteological 
system contained in them, is guaranteed by references to it in 
the S'atajMtha Brdhmana, a Yedic work of that age (§ 42). 

4. Versions of Atreyas System. Of Atreya's theory of the 
skeleton, then, we possess two versions : one by Agnivesa, 
contained in Charaka's Compendium, the other by Bheda 
(or Bhela), contained in Bheda's Compendium. In the pre- 
sent dissertations these two versions will be spoken of as the 
' Medical Version ' of Atreya's theory. There exists, how- 
ever, also another version of that theory, which has been 
handed down in the ancient Law-book of Yajnavalkya 
{Ydjnavalkya D/iarmamsfra), and three other non-medical works 
(§ 14). This version, in the following pages, will be referred to 
as the ' Non-medical Version '. By this term, unless otherwise 
specified, Yajnavalkya's Law-book must always be understood, as 
being the most reliable source of that version. It will be shown 
subsequently (§ 24) that there is some good reason for believing 
that this Non-medical Version really represents a third medical 
version of Atreya's theory, going back to another pupil of 
Atreya, different from Agnivesa and Bheda, but whose name 
is no longer known. 

5. Susnda, the Surgeon. In contrast with Atreya, the physician, 
Susruta was a surgeon. While the former professed general medi- 
cine {Ayurveda, or the Science of life), the latter made surgery 
{Salya) his special study. Susruta, likewise, wrote a Compendium 
[Samhitd) of General Medicine {Ayurveda), but, agreeably with his 
profession, its main concern was with surgical matters. It thus 
treats of some subjects, such as sm-gical instruments, which are 


not noticed at all in the Compendium of Charaka.^ Moreover, 
it omits all mention of some diseases in the treatment of which 
surgery, at that time, did not enter. For this reason, from the 
point of view of general medicine, Susruta's Compendium, of 
course, had the appearance of incompleteness. Hence after some 
time (§ 2, cl. 5), an anonymous writer composed a Supplement 
{JJttara-tantra) which treated of all the subjects unnoticed by 
Susruta. Among the latter were even subjects belonging to 
minor surgery {Sdldk^a), which circumstance shows that, for 
example, the surgical treatment of some eye-diseases (as cataract, 
&c.) was still unknowm in the time of Susruta. At the present 
day the whole work, inclusive of the Supplement, is Icnown 
simply as Susruta's Compendium [Smmta Samhitd), and in the 
present dissertation (unless otherwise specified) it will be quoted 
under that name. In order to distinguish, however, Susruta 
the Supplementor, or Susruta II, from the original Susruta, 
the latter is sometimes designated by Indian commentators 
'Susruta the elder' {vrddJia Snsrnta). For our present purpose 
it is important to notice that the passages relating* to the bones 
of the human body occur in the original work of Susruta the 
elder. At the same time, it is quite possible that the Supple- 
mentor, in addition to his proper task, may have subjected the 
original portion of the compendium to some amount of revision. 
But from indications in the before-mentioned Satapatha Brdkmana 
(§ 42), it is not probable that this occurred in the case of the 
passages in question. 

^ Susruta devotes two whole chapters (the seventh and eighth of 
the Sutra Sthdna) to the description of surgical instruments, and one 
whole chapter (the twenty-fifth) to the principles of surgical operation. 
Charaka appears to speak of surgical operations in two places of his 
Compendium. The operation of laparotomy is described in the Cikitsita 
Sthana, ch. xviii, verses 179 ff. (Jiv. ed., p. 653); and an operation 
for the extraction of a dead foetus is briefly mentioned in a clause of 
the STirtra Sthana, ch. viii, § 64 (p. 364). In neither of these cases, 
however, is any surgical instrument named. Moreover, chapter xviii 
(on Udara) was not written by Charaka at all, but by Dridhabala, who 
extracted his information from Susruta's Compendium {Ctk. Sth., xiv, 
pp. 454-5), where the appropriate instrument [vrildmuJclui, a kind of 
trocar) is named ; and the clause in chapter viii is probably a similar 
interpolation of the same Dridhabala. 


6. Vdghhaia /. Yag-bhata knew both Compendia, of Cliaraka 
and of SuSruta. He refers to both these medical writers 
by name, and quotes, or at least utilizes, their works. In his 
time Charaka's Compendium was still incomplete, but Susruta's 
Compendium had already received its Supplement. This is 
particularly shown by Vagbhata's treatment of the diseases of 
the eye, which are dealt with in Susruta's Supplement, while 
in Charaka's incomplete work they are not described at all. 
Vagbhata wrote a Compendium on General Medicine, which, 
on the model of the Supplemented Compendium of Susruta, 
he divided into six sections {stJidna)} and to which he gave 
the name of Summary of the Octopartite Science {Astdkga 
Samgralia)?- The name indicates Vagbhata's object. It was 
to gather up into a harmonious whole the more or less con- 
flicting medical systems current in his time, especially those 
contained in the Compendia of Charaka and Susruta. In 
pursuance of this object he introduced, especially with refer- 
ence to the diseases of the eye, many modifications in the classi- 
fication and nomenclature which had hitherto been accepted 
in medicine. It also led him to the adoption of compromises — 
by no means always successful — of which, as the present 
dissertation will show, his exposition of the skeleton presents 
a conspicuous example. 

7. Vdghhatu II. On the basis of Vagbhata's Summary a much 
later namesake of his, whom I shall designate Vagbhata II, 
wrote a new work, in the name of which a return is made to the 

^ The concluding section is called Utlara Sthdna in Vagbhata's 
Summary, but Uttara Tantra in Susruta's Compendium. The latter 
consists of five Sthdna and an Uttara-tantra, while the former is 
made up of six Sthdna. The difference in the nomenclature is 
significant. Susruta's original work consisted of only five sections 
(sthdna), to which, at a later date, a supplementary treatise {tantra) 
was added. On the other hand, the division into six sections (sthdna), 
inclusive of the supplementary treatise, was first devised by Vagbhata 
for his own work. 

^ Indian Medicine is divided into eight branches: (1) Internal 
Medicine (Kdya Cikitsd); (2) Major Surgery (S'alya)', (3) Minor 
Surgery (S'dldkya); (4) Daemonology (Bhilta-vidyd) ; (5) Toxicology 
{Visa) ; (6) Tonics (Rasdyana) ; (7) Aphrodisiacs ( Vrsa) ; (8) Paedo- 
trophy (Kumdra-bhrtya). 


older usage, by calling* it the Compendium of the Essence of the 
Octopartite Science [Astdhga Hrdaya Samhita). With reference 
to him the author of the Summary {Samgraha) is sometimes 
called, by Indian commentators, Vagbhata the elder {vrddha 

§ 2. Chronology 

1. It will naturally be expected that some information 
should be given regarding the chronology of the works and their 
authors mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Unfortunatel}' 
there still exists very great incertitude with respect to their 
absolute, and to some extent even to their relative, dates. 
On a future occasion I hope to enter more fully into the 
discussion of the chronological question : for our present purpose 
the following statement will suffice. 

2. Origin of Medicine. According to the Indian medical tra- 
dition the knowledge of medicine had a twofold origin. On the 
one hand, it was delivered by the god Indra to the sage Bhara- 
dvaja, and by him to Atreya : on the other, it descended from 
Indra to Dhanvantari (also called Divodasa,and Kaslraja), and from 
him to Susruta. This tradition traces medicine from a mythical, 
through a semi-mythical, to an historical beginning*. It may be 
taken to mean that Atreya, the physician, and Susruta, the sur- 
geon, were understood to be the first founders, in their respective 
departments, of medicine as a science. Before them there existed 
only what may be called medicine men, who practised medicine 
as a witchcraft, and the source of whose knowledge was claimed 
to be supernatural. 

3. Atreya and Susruta. According to another, non-medical, 
line of Indian tradition, preserved in the Buddhist Jdtakas, or 
Folklore, there existed in India in the age of Buddha two great 
universities, or seats of learning, in which ' all sciences ' [mhha- 
sij^pdni, or sarra-fdjjdni), including medicine, were taught by 
' professors of world-wide reno^\ n ' (disd-jmniokkka dcariya, or dim- 
prdnmkhi/a dcdrya). These two universities were KdB, or Benares, 
in the East, and the still more famous Takmfild, or Taxila (on the 
Jhelam river) in the West. In the latter university, in the time 
of Buddha or shortly before it, the leading Professor of Medicine 


was Atreya.^ He, accordingly, should have flourished at some 
time in the sixth century b. c. As one of the names of Susruta's 
teacher is Kaslraja, which literally means King- of KasT, he may 
not unreasonably be referred to the university of KasI, or Benares. 
This would place the origin of surgery, as a science, in the East 
of India. As a matter of fact, the origin, at least of ophthalmic 
surgery, is uniformly placed by Indian tradition in the eastern 
province of Bihar, being credited to Nemi, the ' lord of Videha ' 
(or Tirhut). "Regarding the date of Susruta we have the 
following indications. He must have been acquainted with the 
doctrines of Atreya. With reference, for example, to the bones 
of the human body, he introduces his own exposition with a 
remark pointing out the difference between Atreya's system and 
his own in respect of the total number of the bones (see § 27). 
This pi'oves that Susruta cannot have been anterior to Atreya. 
On the other hand, there are indications in the Scifapatha 
BrdJimana, a secondary Vedic work, that the author of it was 
acquainted with the doctrines of Susruta (see §§ 42, 56, 60, 61). 
The exact date of that work is not known, but it is with good 
reason referred to the sixth century B.C. (see § 42). The pro- 
bability, therefore, appears to be that Susruta was a rather 
younger contemporary of Atreya, or, let us say, a contemporary 
of Atreya's pupil Agnivesa. 

4. The Aiharva Veda. As bearing on the very early date of 
both Atreya and Susruta, we have a rather significant piece of 
evidence in the Atharva Veda. That work, in its tenth book, con- 
tains a hymn on the creation of man (see § 43), in which the 
several parts of the skeleton are carefully and orderly enumerated 
in striking agreement more especially with the system of Atreya 
as contained in Charaka's Compendium.^ The date of the Atharva 
Veda is not exactly known, but it belongs to the most ancient, 
or primary Vedic, literature of India. It cannot be placed later 

' The famous physician Jivaka, a coutemporary of Buddha, is stated 
to have studied medicine in the Taxila University, under Atreya 
(see Rockhill's Life of Buddha, pp. 65, 96). 

- There are numerous other passages of a similar character in the 
Atharva Veda. The whole evidence is reviewed by me in the Jotmud 
of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1906, p. 915 ff., and for 1907, p. 1 ff. 


than the sixth century b. c, because references to it are found in 
secondary Vedic works, such as the S'atapafha Brdhmana above 
referred to. The larger portion of it (Books I-XVIII), indeed, 
admittedly belongs to a much earlier period, possibly as early 
as about 1000 B.C.; and the hymn in question is included in 
this older portion. Moreover, within that portion it belongs to 
a division (Books VIII-XII) which bears a distinctly hieratic 
character. It thus takes us back to that j^rebistoric, or semi- 
mythical age of the ' medicine men ' who combined the 
fimctions of priest and physician. This period, as already 
stated (clause 2), Indian tradition represents by the name of 
Bharadvaja, and to him it actually ascribes the authorship of 
one of the hymns (the twelfth of the tenth book) of that hieratic 

5. Cliaraha and Ndgdrjnnc According to a Buddhist tmdi- 
tion ^ Charaka was the trusted physician of the celebrated ' Indo- 
scythian' King Kanishka. Unfortunately the date of Kanishka 
himself is still in dispute, opinions varying from the first century 
B. c. to the third century a. d.^ The preponderance of evidence 
appears to me in favour of Kanishka's reigning in the middle 
of the second centurv, circa 125-150 a. d. There exists an 
Indian medical tradition which assigns the revised and supple- 
mented edition of Susruta's original work to Nagaijuna."* If he 
should be the well-known Buddhist patriarch of that name who 
is said to have been a contemporary of King Kanishka, his date 
would practically coincide with that of Charaka. Accordingly 
the original Compendia of Agnivesa and Susruta would have 
been revised and re-edited at much the same time. 

^ On the date of the Atharva Veda, see pp. cxl-clxi in Professor 
Lanman's edition of Whitney's Translation of the Atharva Veda 
Samhitd ; also Professor Macdonell's Sanskrit Literature, jjp. 185-201. 

^ Discovered by Professor Sylvain Levi, Indian Antiquary, vol. xxxii, 
p. 382 ; Vienna Oriental Journal, vol. xi, p. 164. 

^ See V. A. Smith, Earhj History of India, pp. 225-6 ; Dr. Fleet, 
in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1906, p. 979 ff. : Mr. D. E. 
Bhandarkar, in Journal of the Boinhay Branch of the Iioy(d Asiatic 
Society, vol. xx, p. 269 ff. 

* See Dallana's Commentary to Susruta's Compendium (ed. 
Jivananda), p. 2 ; also Dr. Cordier's Recentes Decouvertes, pp. 12, 13. 


6, VCujhIiata the Elder. Regarding- the relation of Vag-bhata I 
to Charaka and Susruta the elder, his posteriority is proved by his 
referring to both these writers by name, and sometimes even quot- 
ing their actual words.^ His relation to Susruta II, the Supple- 
mentor, is less certain. So far as known to me, he never actually 
quotes from him ; still his Summary {Samgralia) presents nu- 
merous indications of a decided posteriority. His treatment, e. g. 
of the diseases of the eye, though in its general lines agreeing 
with that of the Supplementor, yet in its more artificial and 
scholastic method of classification — Vagbhata I counting ninety- 
four diseases against the seventy- six in the Supplementor's 
more natural system — suggests his posteriority to Susruta II. 
The place assigned to Vagbhata I by later Indian Medicine, 
in its traditional series of the three men, Charaka, Susruta, 
Vag'bhata, makes in the same direction ; for there can be no 
doubt that, in that series, the term Susruta refers to the 
Supplemented Com])endium which is now known under Susruta's 
name. If Susruta II is rightly placed in the second centuiy 
A. D., as a contemporary of Charaka, Vagbhata I is, of course, also 
posterior to him. Indeed, there is good reason for placing Vag- 
bhata I as late as the early seventh century a. d. The Buddhist 
pilgrim, Itsing, who resided ten years in the Nalanda monastery 
(in Bihar), from about 675-685 a.d., states in his Becord of 
Buddhist Practices that the ' eight arts (i. e. branches of medicine, 
ante., footnote 2, p. 6) formerly existed in eight books, but lately 
a man epitomized them, and made them into one bundle (or 
book) ', and he adds that 'all physicians in the five parts of 
India (i. e. the whole of India) practise according to his book '.^ 
Seeing that Vagbhata I 's Compendium bears that precise name 
of ' Epitome (or Summary, Samgraha) of the Octopartite Science ', 
the conclusion seems warranted that Itsing was referring to 
that Summary. If so, Vagbhata I cannot have preceded Itsing 
by any vei'y long interval of time ; nor may the interval be 

^ By name, e.g. in Samgraha, Bombay ed., vol. i, p. 246; vol. ii, 
p. 421. Again quoted from Charaka, ibid., vol. i, pp. 20, 93 ; vol. ii, 
PI). 212, 213, et passim; from Susruta I, ibid., vol. i, pp. 109, 121, 
177, 247; vol. ii, p. 303, et passim. 

^ See Professor Takakusu's Translation, p. 128 ; also Journal 
Royal Asiatic Soc, 1907, p. 413ff. 


made too short, because time was necessaiy for the diffusion of 
the Summary as a standard work ' throughout India '. Accord- 
ing-ly Vag-bhata I may be placed early in the seventh century, 
or about 625 a. d. This estimate of his date is supported by 
certain structural features of his Summary, which are explained 
in §§ 38-40. It is, further, in agreement with the progressive 
decadence in the knowledge and practice of anatomy and 
surgery, which is apparent in the medical writings subsequent 
to the time of Susruta II. One of the results of the present 
dissertation is to bring out the contrast between the treatment 
of the bones of the human body in the hands of Susruta and 
Vagbhata I. While that of the former exhibits a remarkable 
familiarity with the structure of the skeleton, the latter's 
treatment of the subject is so replete with inconsistencies and 
incongruities as to show that in the time of Vagbhata I practical 
anatomy had fallen into disuse. At a still later time, in the 
Compendium of Vagbhata II, the information about the skeleton 
is limited to the bare statement that the total number of bones 
is 360.^ Again, the surgical treatment of certain diseases of the 
eye, such as cataract, which occupies a considerable space in the 
Supplement {Utfara Tcmtra) of Susruta II, is much less pro- 
minent in the Summary {Hamyraha) of Vagbhata I, while in 
the subsequent writings of Madhava, Dridhabala, and Vagbhata 
II it is altogether ignored. The dates of the latter three 
authors fall somew^here, at no great intervals, in the period from 
the 7th-9th centuries a.d. ; and facts, such as those just men- 
tioned, indicate the place of Vagbhata I to be intermediate, 
yet much nearer to them than to Susruta II, and thus tend 
to confirm the assignment of the former to the early seventh 
century a. d. 

7. Madhava, Brifjhalala, and Vdghhata II. With regard 
to the chronological position of the three authors, Madhava, 
Dridhabala, and Vagbhata II, two points are quite certain. 
In the first place, all three are posterior to Vagbhata I. 
This, to start with, is a necessary inference from their atti- 
tude, as above explained (clause 6), towards anatomy. But 

' Contained in half a verse, Astangu Hrdaya, Sarira Sthdna, ch. iii, 
ver. 16 a (1st ed., vol. i, p. 548). ' 


there is positive proof. Madhava cites Vag-bhata I by name, 
and also quotes from him anonymously.^ Dridhabala, thoug-h 
he does not name Vagbhata I as his authority, quotes from him 
very frequently.- Also his total of ninety-six diseases of the 
eye is based on Vagbhata I's total of ninety-four (see p. 13). 
As to Vagbhata II, according to his own statement,^ his Com- 
pendium [Astdiiffa Ilrdaya Samkitd) is based on the Summary 
{Astdnffa 8amgraha) of Vagbhata I, and reproduces it copiously. 
In the second place, all three are anterior to Chakrapanidatta, 
whose date is about 1060 a. d. The latter names Dridhabala, 
and expressly specifies the extent of his contribution to Charaka's 
Compendium.* He also frequently quotes Dridhabala as the 
author of the last section [Siddhi StJidna) of that Compendium.^ 
As to Vagbhata II, quotations from him, by name, are very 
numerous in Chakrapanidatta' s Commentary on Charaka's Com- 
pendium.^ Madhava's anteriority to Chakrapanidatta necessarily 
follows from the fact of his preceding (see p. 13) both Dridhabala 

^ By name, iu Siddhayoga, i, 27, cf. S'amgraJia, vol. ii, p. 1, 1. 8. 
Quoted, m^''iddna{ed..]iv.), ii, 22, 23, ci.Sarhgraha, vol.i, p. 266, 11. 2-o. 

^ Caraka Samhitd (ed. Jlv., 1896), Cikitsita Sthdna, xvi, ver. 31, 
p. 624, ci. Samgraha, vol. ii, p. 26, 11. 7, 8 ; ibid., xvi, verses 53 ff., p. 626. 
cf. Samgraha, vol. ii, p. 27, 11. 8 ff. ; ibid., xvi, ver. 64 b, p. 627, cf. 
Samgraha, vol.ii, p. 27, 1.19 ; ibid., xvi, verses 76ff., p. 628, cf. Samgraha, 
vol. ii, p. 28, 11. 20fF. ; ibid., xvi, ver. 97, p. 638, cf. Saingraha, vol. ii, 
p. 108, 11. 15 fif. ; et passim. 

^ See Astdi'iga Hrdaya, Uttara Sthdna, ch. 40, ver. 82 (1st ed., 
vol. ii, p. 826). 

* See Cliakrapanidatta's Commentary, iu Tubingen MS., no. 463, 
fol. 534 b. 

' e.g. Cliakrapanidatta's Commentary (ed. Yisarad), p. 123, 11. 18, 19, 
of. Caraka Samhitd (ed. Jlv., 1896), Siddhi Sthdna, vi, ver. 3, p. 887; 
ibid., p. 238, II. 15, 16, cf. Siddhi SUdna, vi, ver. 19, p. 888. 

® e.g. in Visarad's edition, p. 15, 11. 17, 18, d. Astdnga Hrdaya, 
Sutra Sthdna, ch. i, ver. 3 (1st ed., vol. i, p. 6) ; ibid., p. 124, 11. 12, 13, 
cf. Ast. Hrd., ibid., ch. xiii, ver. 33 (vol. i, p. 282) ; ibid., p. 250, 11. 22, 23, 
cf. Ast. Hrd., Niddna Sthdna, ch. x, ver. 21 (vol. i, p. 772). — As 
Vagbhata II so extensively reproduces the text of Vagbhata I, it is 
important to note that in this, as well as in the preceding footnotes 
concerning Madhava and Dridhabala, only such passages have been 
selected as evidence as are found only in the Samgraha of A^agbhata I, 
or in the Samhitd of Vagbhata II, according as the case in hand 


and Vagbhata II. These three medical authors, accordingly, 
must have their place somewhere between the seventh and 
eleventh centuries a. u. 

8. Mddhava. Coming now to the chronological place of Ma- 
dhava, Dridhabala, and Vagbhata II, relatively to one another — 
a point still involved in much obscurity — the trend of the avail- 
able evidence appears to make for the following positions. In the 
first place : Madhava is anterior to Dridhabala. There are two 
facts which seem to be conclusive on this point. One concerns 
the enumeration of the diseases of the eye. Susruta II, giving 
a detailed list, counts seventy-six such diseases, while Vagbhata I, 
recasting the list of Susruta II, makes out a total of ninety-four. 
Madhava, who elects to abide by Susruta II's method of 
counting, nevertheless increases the total to seventy-eight,^ by 
adding two diseases of the eyelashes. Vagbhata II simply 
adopts the list of Vagbhata I. Dridhabala, attempting a com- 
promise, states the total to be ninety-six.^ He does not explain 
how he arrived at that total, nor, indeed, does he give any 
details at all, but simply refers the curious on the subject to 
other medical authorities. In these circumstances it may be 

^ The memorial verses, as commonly printed in Madhava's Niddna, 
giving a total of seventy-six, are spurious and false. Jlvananda's 
edition gives them at the end (p. 347), but Udoy Chand Dutt's edition 
at the beginning (p. 220) of the chapters on the diseases of the eye. 
Moreover, they do not agree with Madhava's OAvn text ; for they omit 
the two diseases of the eyelashes {paksma-kopa and paksma-sdta), 
mentioned by Madhava at the end of the last of those chapters (Jiv., 
p. 347, verses 22, 23 ; U.C. Dutt, p. 236). Adding these two diseases, 
the total becomes seventy-eight. The various systems of enumerating 
the diseases of the eye adopted by Susruta II, Vagbhata I, Madhava, 
and Dridhabala respectively, are very complicated. It is impossible, 
in the present case, to state more than the simple facts. In a sub- 
sequent dissertation on the diseases of the eye I hope to have an 
opportunity of explaining the details. 

^ In Caraka Sam]dtd,Cikitsita Sthdna, ch.xxvi,ver. 222 (Jiv., p. 761). 
The edition published by the two Sens reads seventy-six! (p. 884, 1. 4) ; 
but this is a mere reprint from Gangadliar's Berhampore edition 
(p. 575), for which there is no known manusci'ipt authority. It appears 
to be an ' emendation ' of Gangadhar himself. All existing MSS. read 
ninety-six ; e. g. Tubingen MSS., No. 458, fol. 632 a, 1. 2 ; and 
No. 459, fol. 216 6, 1. 5 ; India Office MSS., No. 335, fol. 419 6, 1. 1, 
and No. 359, fob 153a, 1. 7 ; Deccan College i\lS., No. 925, fol. 334a, 1. G. 


concluded that Dridhabala obtained his total of ninety-six by 
adopting Vagbhata I's total of ninety-four (which corresponds 
to Susruta II's total of seventy-six) and adding- to it the two 
new diseases set up by Madhava. It thus follows that Madhava 
is anterior to Dridhabala. The second fact concerns the so-called 
Kashmir Recension [KdhMra-pdtha) of Charaka's Compendium. 
Vijaya Rakshita, in his commentary (called Madhxikosa) on 
Madhava's Patholog-y {Niddna), notices several passages, cited by 
Madhava from Charaka's Compendium, where the Kashmir 
Recension differs from the Recension quoted by Madhava. The 
inference is that Madhava cites the passages as written by 
Charaka himself ; that the Kashmir Recension was not known 
to him, and that, in fact, that Recension was not yet in exist- 
ence. Seeing that the Kashmir Recension was the work of the 
Kashmir physician Dridhabala (§ 1), it follows that Dridhabala 
is posterior to Madhava. No doubt every link in this chain 
of inference possesses no more than probable force ; still, the 
cumulative effect of the two arguments is to raise the presump- 
tion that, as a fact, Madhava is anterior to Dridhabala.^ 

9. Dridhabala. In the second place, Dridhabala is anterior to 
Vagbhata II. The latter, in one of the concluding verses of his 
Compendium,- refers to the very insufficient character of the infor- 
mation on the diseases of the eye to be found in Charaka's Com- 
pendium as compared with that given in Susruta's Compendium. 
Seeing that that information is contained in one of Dridhabala's 
complementary chapters,^ Vagbhata's remark proves that he was 

^ It is true that the commentator Vijaya Rakshita (c. 1240 A. d.), 
in an explanatory statement on Niddna (ed. .Jiv., p. 147), xxii, 5, 11. 1,2 
^ Caraka Samhitd, Cikitsita Sthdna, xxviii, ver. 24 (Jiv., p. 773), 
apparently implies the posteriority of Madhava to Dridhabala. But 
it should be observed that the object of Vijaya Rakshita is not to 
make a chronological, but an exegetical statement. The chronological 
implication may not have been intended by him, even assuming that 
in the thirteenth century the exact chronological relation of Madhava to 
Dridhabala was still within the knowledge of medical writers. 

^ See Astdiiga Ilrdaya, Uttara Sthdna, ch. xl, ver. 83; in the 1st 
ed., vol. ii, p. 826. 

^ Viz. the twenty-sixth chapter on Trimarmiya, in the Caraka 
Samhitd, Cikitsita Sthdna, verses 221-5G (Jiv. ed., 1896, pji. 761-4). 
The fact that Vagbhata II simply speaks of Charaka's Compendium 


acquainted with Dridhabala's completion of Charakas Com- 
pendium. Moreover, Vagbhata II not infrequently revises the 
versified form in which prose passages had been quoted by Dri- 
dbabala from the Summary {Samgraha) of Vagbhata I.' Lastly, it 
may be noted that Arnnadatta, in his commentary on Vagbhata 
II's Compendium, expressly refers to Dridhabala's edition of 
the Compendium of Charaka as the source of one of the verses 
of Vagbhata II." This last point is particularly effective. The 
verse in question occurs in the introductory portion of the nine- 
teenth chapter of Charaka's Compendium on the Treatment of 
Chronic Diarrhoea^ (§ 99, cl. 2). In that portion Dridhabala 
summarizes in versified form the prose account of the subject in 
the Anatomical Section of the Summary of Vagbhata I.* That 
it is really a summary of Vagbhata I's account is obvious from 
the fact that his terms and phrases are as far as possible retained 
by Dridhabala. Vagbhata II still further summarizes the sum- 
mary of Dridhabala ; and that his doubly summarized account is 
really based on the latter, but not on Vagbhata I, is shown by 
the fact that it contains none of the terms and phrases of the 
latter, but retains intact three of the verses (among them the 

without any reference to Dridhabala's authorship of the chapter in 
question creates no difficulty. As observed in § 1, the whole work, 
inclusive of Dridhabala's complement, came to be known simply as 
Charaka's Compendium ; and it is not at all uncommon to find 
Dridhabala quoted as 'Charaka'; e.g. by Vijaya Rakshita in his 
Madhukosa (Jiv., 1901), pp. 159, 161, 163. 

^ e.g. the prose direction in Samgraha, Cikitsita Sthdna, ch. xvii 
(vol. ii, p. 99, 1. 23), is expressed by Dridhabala in a single verse 
{Caraka Samhitd, Cik., xviii, ver. 85 a ; Jiv., p. 646), while Vagbhata IT 
gives it in two verses {Astdnga Hrdaya, Cik., xv, verses 96 h, 97a, in 1st 
ed., vol. ii, p. 285). Other examples are : Vagbhata II in Cikitsita, xv, 
verses 61 6-63 (vol. ii, p. 279) and verses 91 h, 92 (vol. ii, p. 284). com- 
pared with Dridhabala, in C?^., xviii, verses 676— 69(Jrv., pp.644-5)and 
verses 80, 81 (Jiv., p. 645), and with Vagbhata I's prose in Cik., xvii 
(vok ii, p. 98, 11. 9-12, and p. 99, 11. 21-23). ' 

* See Astdnga Hrdaya (1st ed.), vol. i, p. 571, 1. 19. The verae in 
(juestion is 62 6, 63 a, in the third chapter of the S'drira Sthdna. 

' See Cikitsita Sthdna, Grahanl-roga, xix, vcr. 14, in Jiv. ed., 1896, 
p. 656. 

* See Astdnga Samgraha, Sdrlra Sthdna, ch. vi, in the Bombay ed., 
vol. i, pp. 230 ff. 


verse in question) of Dridhabala.^ This state of things was 
evidently realized by Arunadatta, for, as already stated, he 
expressly mentions Dridhabala as the source of Vagbhata II. 

10. Their Bates. The evidence of Arabic sources points to 
the seventh or eighth century for Madhava, and that of Tibetan 
and other sources to the eighth or ninth century for Vagbhata 11.^ 
According to the evidence, already explained, Dridhabala takes 
his place intermediately between Madhava and Vagbhata II. 
Accordingly it is probable that all these three medical writers 
come in the period from the seventh to the ninth century, at no 
very great interval from one another. In any case none of 
them can be later than <?. 1060 a. d., the date of Chaki'apanidatta. 

11. Commentators and their Bates. Of early commentators 
on the Compendia of Charaka and Susruta, and on the Summary 
of Vagbhata I, whose works have come down to us, the following 
may be mentioned. 

On Charaka's Compendium we have Chakrapanidatta's Com- 
mentary, called Caraka Tdtparya Tlka (i. e. Explanation of 
Charaka's Meaning) or Ayurveda Bipikd (i. e. Light on General 
Medicine). Its author is known to have lived about 1060 a. d. 

On Susruta's Compendium we have Dallana's commentary, 
called Nitjandha Samgraha, or Summary of Commentaries. The 
earliest known quotations of this work are by Hemadri and 
Vachaspati,^ who lived about 1260 a. d, ; and as Dallana himself 
quotes Chakrapanidatta, he should be placed in the twelfth 
century. He frequently quotes also a commentary {pahjikd or 
ca/ulrikd) by Gayadasa (or simply Gay in), called Nydya Candrikd, 
or Reasoned Elucidation. Gayadasa, therefore, cannot be placed 
later than the eleventh century, and he may have been a 
contemporary of Chaki-apanidatta, seeing that neither appears 
to quote from the other.* 

' Namely, verses 59, 60, 62 in Astdhga Hrdaya, S'drira Sthana 
ch. iii (1st ed., vol. i, pp. 566, 567, 569). 

"^ For details and authorities see Professor Jolly's Indian Medicine, 

§§ 5, 6, pp. 7-9. 

» According to information by letter (October 30, 1904) from 

Dr. P. Cordier. 

* See Professor Jolly in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, 
vol. Iviii, p. 114 ff.; and Dr. P. Cordier's Recentes Decouvertes, p. 15. 


On the Compendium of Vagbhata II we have a commentary 
by Arunadatta, called Sarvdnga Sundarl (i. e. Excellent in all 
Branches of Medicine).^ On the Pathology [Nidana) of Madhava 
there exists a commentary, called Madhnkosa (i. e. Receptacle 
of Honey), the joint work of Vijaya Rakshita and his pupil 
Srikanthadatta, and another by Vachaspati, called Atafika 
Darjoana (i. e. Mirror of Diseases). The latter, as he himself 
states (in verse 4 of his Introduction), consulted the Madhnkosa 
for the purpose of writing his own commentary, and Vijaya 
Rakshita controverts a certain doctrine of Arunadatta regarding 
the structure of the eye.^ Vachaspati further states (in verse 5 
of his Introduction) that his father Pramoda was chief physician 
at the court of ' Mahamada Hammira', that is, of the Amir 
Muizzuddin Muhammad (the celebrated Muhamed Ghori) who 
reigned in Delhi from 1193 to 1205 a. d. Moreover, Vijaya 
Rakshita quotes Gunakara who wrote the Yogaratnamdld in 
1239 A. D.2 Accordingly we obtain the following approximate 
dates : 

Arunadatta, about 1220 a. d, 

Vijaya Rakshita, about 1240 a. d. 

Vachaspati, about 1260 a. d. 
12. Bhdskara Bhatta and Bkava 3Iura. To a slightly 
earlier date than that of Chakrapanidatta belongs a medical 
author, Bhaskara Bhatta. He appears to have lived about 
1000 A. D.^ He wrote a tract on Anatomy, called Sdrlra 
Padmml (i. e. Lotus among Works on Anatomy). The state- 

For further information on the commentaries on Susruta's Compendium, 
see my Article in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of London 
for 1906, p. 283. 

^ The title makes a pun : it also means ' a woman beautiful in all 
her limbs '. 

^ It concerns the true position of the so-called hdhya patala or 
outer cover of the eyeball, i. e. the cornea plus aqueous humour. 
See Astdnga Hrdaya, Uttara Sthmia, ch. xii, ver. 1 (in 1st ed., 
vol. ii, p. 516). 

^ Information by letter (October 30, 1904) from Dr. P. Cordier. 
The quotation occurs in the Madhnkosa on Niddna, v, 7 (Jiv., p. 68). 
On the date of Gunakara, see Peterson's Eeport, 1886-92, p. xxvi. 

■* See Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 340. The Sarlra Padmini was 
brought to notice by Dr. P. Cordier in his Recentes Decouvertes, p. 30. 



ments on the skeleton, contained in this treatise, reproduce 
the doctrine of Susruta, as modified by Vagbhata I (see § 36). 

A very much later author, who also reproduces Susruta's 
doctrine on the skeleton, and who will be mentioned occasion- 
ally in the following- pages, is Bhava Misra. He lived in the 
sixteenth century, and wrote a voluminous compilation, of no 
originality, from previous medical writings, under the name of 
BJidva Prakdm (i. e. Manifestation of the Truth). 


A. The System or Atreya-Charaka 

§ 3. Charakas Statement, and its Recensions 

The Medical Version of Atreya's system of the bones 
of the human body, as banded down by Charaka, is con- 
tained in the beginning- of the seventh chapter (ad//?/d//a) 
of the fourth or Anatomical Section [Sdrlra Sf/ichia) of his 

■ There exist two recensions of Charaka's statement. One is 
contained in the edition of the Compendium which was printed 
by Jivananda Vidyasagara in Calcutta in 1877, where it is found 
on page 370, lines 5-19. The other occurs in Gangadhar's 
edition, page 186, lines 11-22, printed in Berhampore, 1879 
{Bahrampura, samvat 1936). These two recensions differ so 
widely from each other that it is necessary to inquire into 
their respective authorities. 

The recension of Jivananda has the following witnesses in its 
favour. In the first place, it has the support of all accessible 
manuscripts. I have been able to examine the following* nine: 

1. The two Tiibingen University MSS., M. a. I. 458 and 459 
(Cat., Nos. 141, 142). The)' come from Benares, whence they 
were procured by myself for the late Professor von Roth in 
1873. The original MS. from which No. 142 was copied is 
dated in samvat 1778, i. e. 1721 a. d. 

2. The two India Office MSS., Nos. 335 and 881 (Cat., Nos. 
2637 and 2640), originally belonging to the Colebrooke Collec- 
tion, and therefore probably from Calcutta. No. 2640 is dated 
1806 A.D. 

c % 


3. The two Deccan College MSS., No. 368 (Bhandarkar's 
Report of 1882-3) and No. 925 (Kathavate's Report of 1891-5) ; 
from Western India ; dates unknown.^ 

4. Two Kashmir MSS., in Sarada characters. One, No. 32G6 
(p. 182 of Dr. Stein's Catalognie), belongs to the Jammu Library, 
and was excerpted for me through Dr. Stein's kind inter- 
mediation. The excerj)t from the other I owe to the kindness 
of Dr. P. Cordier (see his Recentes Deconvertes, p. 9). The dates 
of these two MSS. are unknown ; but as both are written on 
paper they must be eom])aratively modern. 

5. The Alwar Palace Library MS., No. 1624, an excerpt from 
which was transmitted to me by the kindness of Major P. T. A. 
Spence, the British Political Agent. 

It should be observed that these nine MSS. come from widely 
separated Indian localities. They are, therefore, independent 
witnesses — a fact which enhances their testimony. 

In the second place, the recension of Jivananda has the support of 
the oldest existing commentary of Chakrapanidatta (c. 1060 a.d.). 
A considerable number of names of more or less ancient glossators 
or commentators is known, for a list of which Dr. P. Cordier's 
Kecentes Becouvertes, pp. 10, 11^ may be consulted. But the 
commentary of Chakrapanidatta is the only one that now 
survives, and even of it, manuscripts are extremely rare, and 
all are incomplete. I was able to consult the Tiibingeu 
University MS., M. a. I. 463 (Cat., No. 146). It fortunately 
contains Chakrapanidatta's glosses on Charaka's statement in 
question. These glosses are based entirely on the recension which 
is printed in Jivananda's edition, and while they refer to various 
interpretations of it, they give no indication whatsoever of the 
existence of a recension even faintly resembling that of 
Gangadhar's edition. 

In the third place, the recension of Jivananda has the support 
of the Medical Version of Atreya's system as handed down by 
Bheda (or Bhela), as well as of the Non-medical Version of that 
system as preserved in Yajnavalkya's Law-book and other non- 
medical works (see § 14). Seeing that all three versions — the 

* The loan of these two MSS. I owe to the kindness of Professor 
K. P. Pathak, of the Deccan College. 


Medical Versions of Charaka and Bheda, and the Non-medical 
^^ersion — equally profess to present the teaching- of Atreya, 
their almost verbal agreement affords the strongest testimony 
in favour of Jivananda's recension of the Version of Charaka. 

On the other hand, the recension of Gangadhar — so far as I have 
been able to ascertain — is absolutely destitute of all support. 
It first appears in the Berhampore edition of 1879, published by 
Dharanidhar Ray. Neither Gangadhar nor Dharanidhar refers 
to any MSS., nor does either mention any variae lectiones. The 
same recension next appears in the Calcutta edition of Avinas 
Chandra Kaviratna (1884). He does not state his sources ; but, 
to all aj)pearance, he simply reprints from the Berhampore 
edition. The same recension once more appears in the Calcutta 
edition of Debendranath Sen and Upendranath Sen (1897). In 
their preface the joint editors profess not only to have collected, 
with much trouble and expense, ' many manuscripts from Kasi 
[Benares], Kashmir, Bombay, Dravida [Madras ?], Poona, and 
other places/ but also to have consulted some very old [p-aclna- 
fama) and correct {yimddha) MSS. in their own possession. 
It will be well to receive this statement with considerable 
reserve ; for it is well known that MSS. of Charaka^s Com- 
pendium are neither so common, nor so old, nor so correct as the 
joint editors suggest. They very rarely quote any variae lectiones, 
and in the few cases in which they do so they never refer to any 
particular MS. authority. Thus in the whole Anatomical Section, 
comprising eight chapters (seventy-six pag*es in print), they 
mention only two unimportant, and unidentified variants (in 
the eighth chapter, p. 429). In the seventh chapter of that 
section which contains the statement on the skeleton, they 
mention no variants at all, nor give any indication whatsoever 
of their being aware of the existence of an entirely discrepant 
recension. Under these circumstances, despite the claim made 
in the preface, the conclusion is unavoidable that the joint 
edition is essentially nothing more than a reprint from Avinas 
Chandra's, and ultimately from Gangadhar's editions. The 
three aforesaid editions are prints produced in Calcutta, or at 
least in Bengal. Recently the same recension has been 
published in Bombay, by Sankara Shastri, in a cheap edition. 


This fact, at first sig-ht, might be thoug-ht to suggest the 
existence of some MS. source in Bombay, but cheap editions 
do not g-o to the trouble and expense of collating' MSS., but 
usually reprint already existing' editions ; and there can be no 
reasonable doubt that the Bombay edition is but a reprint from 
its Calcutta predecessors. 

So far it has been impossible to trace Gangadhar's recension 
l)ack any farther than his own Berhampore edition. When we 
add — what will be shown in detail in subsequent paragraphs 
(§§ 9, 10) — that that recension is not only full of incongruities 
and inconsistencies, but that it also presupposes a knowledge of 
the system of Susruta, some of whose peculiar terms (e. g. kiirca, 
or cluster of bones) it adopts, the conclusion is irresistible that, 
in all probability, it reproduces no genuine text of any Charaka 
MS., but is an ill-considered attempt of Gangadhar himself to 
reconstruct or (as he thought) improve the text of the, perhaps 
grossly incorrect, MS., or MSS. of Charaka's Compendium, 
which he may have had at his disposal in the preparation of his 
edition. The spurious recension, thus originated, was afterwards 
unquestioningly and thoughtlessly adopted by Gangadhar's 
Bensral successors. All the more credit is due to Jivananda for 
preserving, in his earlier edition of 1877, the genuine recension 
of the text of Charaka's Compendium; and it is much to be 
regretted that in his recent re-edition of 1896 (p. 351, clause 5) 
he should have been misled into substituting the spurious recen- 
sion of Gangadhar. 


§ 4. The genuine Rece7ision of Charaka 

The srenuine traditional recension of the statement of 

Charaka on the bones of the human body runs as follows 

(Original Text in § 71) : 

' The body consists of the following parts {(tnga) : the two 
arms (bd/ai), the two legs [saktJti), the head and neck {firo-grlva), 
and the trunk [antarddki). These make up the sexipartite 
{m(]aiiga) body. Inclusive of the teeth and nails, it has three 
hundred and sixty bones. These are 

1. 32 teeth [dmita). 

2. 32 sockets [uluMala) of the teeth, 

3. 20 nails {nakha). 


4. 60 phalang-es {anguU) in the hands and feet. 

5. 20 long- bones {mldkd) of the hands and feet. 

6. 4 bases of the long bones [mldk-ddhisthdna). 

7. 2 heels (jxlrsni). 

8. 4 ankle-bones {cjidjiha) of the two feet.^ 

9. 2 wrist-bones {manika) of the two hands.^ 

10. 4 bones of the two forearms (aratni). 

11. 4 bones of the two leg's [jahgha). 

12. 2 knee-caps {jdnn). 

13. 2 elbow-pans [jdnu-kapdlikd]} 

14. 2 hollow bones {nalaka) of the two thighs [urn). 

15. 2 hollow l)ones {nalaka) of the two arms {bdim). 
16 a. 2 shoulders («wm). 

16 ^. 2 shoulder-blades [amsa-phalaka). 

17. 2 collar-bones [aksaka). 

18. 1 windpipe [jatru). 

19. 2 palatal cavities [tdl-usaka). 

20. 2 hip-blades {honi-phalaka). 

21. 1 pubic bone {bJiag-dsthi). 

22. 45 back-bones [prstjia-gat-dsthi). 

23. 15 bones of the neck {grivd). 

24. 14 bones of the breast (nras). 

25 a. 24 ribs (pdrsvaka) in the two sides, 

25 b. 24 sockets [sthdlaka) of the ribs. 

25 c. 24 tubercles {arbuda) fitting- into the sockets. 

26. 1 (lower) jaw-bone (hanv-asthi), or chin. 

27. 2 basal tie-bones of the (lower) jaw {hanu-inula-handhano). 

28. 1 bone constituting the nose, prominences of the cheeks, 

and brows {ndsikd-gandakuta-laldta). 

29. 2 temples (Sankka). 

30. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones (urak-kapdla). 

These are the three hundred and sixty bones, inclusive of the 
teeth and nails.' 

§ 5. A^icient Inconsistency 

There is a slight inconsistency in the statement of Charaka 
which it may be well to point out at once. In the introduc- 
tory clause which enumerates the six anga, or constitutive 
parts of the body, Charaka places these parts into three divisions, 

^ The terms ' ankle-bone ' and ' wrist-bone ', here and throughout 
this dissertation, signify the malleoli and styloid processes respectively; 
also, ' elbow-pan ' signifies the olecranon process. 


viz. (1) the extremities (two arais and two legs), (2) the head 
and neck, and (3) the trunk. That Charaka looked upon the 
head and neck as constituting- but one division, apart from the 
extremities and the trunk, is shown by his using- a peculiar 
compound word siro-grlva, made up from siras, head, and grlvd, 
neck, to indicate that division — a circumstance which the 
commentator Chakrapanidatta is careful to point out (§ 11). 
Now, though Charaka does not (as Susruta and Vagbhata I do, 
§§ 28, 37) expressly state that his enumeration of the bones 
follows the three divisions, yet certain diAasions are clearly 
discernible in it : only they are not quite consistent with his 
introductory clause. First, we have a small preliminaiy division, 
comprising Nos. 1-3, the teeth, their sockets, and the nails, 
altogether eighty-four bones. That these form a kind of supple- 
mental division is, indeed, indicated by Charaka himself in the 
introductory clause. Next, there comes the first proper division, 
comprising Nos. 4-15. It refers to the four extremities, and 
includes 108 bones. Thirdly, we have the second division, 
referring to the trunk. It comprises Nos. 16-25, and includes 
158 bones. Lastly, there is the third division, comprising 
Nos. 26-30. It refers to the head alone, and includes ten bones. 
The bones belonging to the neck are found classed in the second 
division, which deals with the trunk. They form Nos. 18 and 
23, and include sixteen bones. There is also No. 19, two 
j)alatal cavities, which properly belongs to the head. Agreeably 
with Charaka's own introductory clause one would expect these 
eighteen bones to be classed with those of the head in the third 
division, and to stand immediately before No. 26, jaw-bone. 
The probability is that they did stand so in the text as it left 
Charaka's hands, and that the misplacement is due to un- 
intelligent copying in later times. This surmise receives con- 
siderable support from the fact that in the parallel Non-medical 
Version of Atreya's system (§ 16) we find that the bones of the 
neck, Nos. 18 and 23 (Nos. 19, 20 in § 16), actually take their 
proper place immediately before the bones of the head (see § 17, 
cl. 1 a). It is true that in this Version, too, No. 19, the palatal 
cavities, is similarly misplaced, and that the Medical Version 
of Bheda (§ 12) shows exactly the same misplacements as the 


Medical Version of Charaka. But this circumstance only proves 
that the misplacements must be of very ancient date. 

§ 6. Ancient Corruptions 

There is a further point in which the traditionally trans- 
mitted form of the Medical Version of Charaka is almost cer- 
tainly corrupted. No. 16 a, two shoulders (amsa), is evidently 
superfluous. By the side of No. 16 b, two shoulder-blades 
(aynsa-p/ialahi), and No. 17, two collar-bones [ahaka), there is 
no room left for any ' shoulders ' (see § 56). The repetition of 
a word is not at all an uncommon clerical error. Thus the 
Tiibingen MS., No. 458, reads bdhu, arms, and iiru, thig-hs, in 
addition to No. 15, hdJno-nalaka, hollow bones of the arms, and 
No. 14, uru-nalaka, hollow bones of the thighs. Similarly the 
Deccan College MS., No. 368, and the Bheda MS. repeat uru 
by the side of uru-nalaka ; likewise the Alwar Palace MS. and 
one of the Sarada MSS. repeat bd/m by the side of bdlm-nalaka ; 
see the critical notes in § 72. In these cases, there cannot be the 
smallest doubt that we are simply confronted by clerical errors. 
But by parity of reasoning, it is as good as certain that in No. 16 a, 
amsa, shoulder, we have a very ancient false repetition, due to 
the immediately following No. 16 ^, amsa-j^halaka, shoulder- 
blade, which, probably owing to its adoption in the system of 
Vagbhata I (§ 38, cl. 2), succeeded in establishing itself per- 
manently in all MSS. In confirmation it may be noted that 
in the parallel Non-medical Version of the Law-book of Yajna- 
valkya, the item amsa is actually omitted (§§ 16 and 17).' The 
omission of No. 16 a, amsa, shoulder, of course, renders the total 
of 360 short by 2 {viz. 358) ; but, on the other hand, the 
probability is that in No. 9 the correct reading should be four 
wrist-bones {mavika) instead of two. For, as a matter of fact, as 
will be shown in the sequel (§ 52, cf. pp. 30, 49, 50, 63), there 
are four wrist- bones, homologous to the four ankle-bones. 

Another instance of a similar ancient false repetition we have 
in No. 13, kapdlikd, elbow-pan, where now all MSS. xQ^^jdnu- 
kapdlikd, falsely duplicating the preceding No. 12, jdnu, knee- 

^ The omission, here suggested, is also confirmed by the osteological 
summary which is given in the hymn of the Atharva Veda, see § 43, cl. G. 


cap. Here, again, it may be noted that the parallel Non-medical 
Version does not exhibit the duplication oijdnu. It has simply 
No. 12, jdnv, knee-cap, and No. 13, kapola, elbow-pan, the 
latter being- really a false reading for kajmla (§ 53). 

J 7. Restoration of the Statement of Charaka 

Admitting the emendations indicated in the two pre- 
ceding paragraphs, the correct form of Charaka's statement of 
the Medical Version may be restored as follows (Original Text 
in § 73) : 

1. 32 teeth {dafda). 

2. 32 sockets {nlukhala) of the teeth. 

3. 20 nails {nakha). 

4. 60 phalanges {angull). 

5. 20 long bones {mldkd). 

6. 4 bases of the long bones [mid k-dd hist hdna). 

7. 2 heels (j)drsni). 

8. 4 ankle-bones {gidpha). 

9. 4 wa-ist-bones {vianika). 

10. 4 bones of the forearms {aratni). 

11. 4 bones of the legs [jahglta). 

12. 2 knee-caps (j'dnu). 

13. 2 elbow-pans {kapdllka). 

14. 2 hollow bones {jialaka) of the thighs [urn). 

15. 2 hollow bones {nalaka) of the arms {hdhit). 

16. 2 shoulder-blades {amsa-jjJialaka). 

17. 2 collar-bones (aksaka). 

18. 2 hip-blades {h'oni-pknlaka). 

19. 1 pubic bone {Jjliag-dsihi). 

20. 45 back-bones {j)rsika-gaf-dsthi). 

21. 14 bones of the breast [urns). 
22 «. 24 ribs [pdrhaka). 

22 (5. 24 sockets [stkdlaka) of the ribs. 

22 c. 24 tubercles {arhuda) fitting into the sockets. 

23. 15 bones of the neck [grivd). 

24. 1 windpipe {jatni). 

25. 2 palatal cavities {idl-usaka). 

26. 1 (lower) jaw-bone {lumv-dsthi) or chin. 

27. 2 basal tie-bones of the jaw (Jiami-mula-handJiana). 

28. 1 bone constituting nose, prominences of the cheeks 

and browns [ndnkd-gandakuta-laldta). 

29. 2 temples [scmkko^. 

30. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones {urah-kapdla). 
Total 360. 


§ 8. Gangddhar s Recension 

Gangadhar's recension of the statement of Charaka on the 
bones of the human body runs as follows (Original Text in 

'The body consists of the following* parts: two arms (kl////), 
two legs {sakthi), the head and neck [firo-grlva), and the trunk 
{anfarddhi). These make up the sexipartite body [sadahga). 
Inclusive of the teeth, their sockets, and the nails, it has three 
hundred and sixty bones. These are 

1. 33 sockets [idukhala) of the teeth. 

2. 32 teeth {danla). 

3. 20 nails [nakha). 

4. 20 long bones [mldkd). 

5 a. 4 bases {adhistluma) of the long bones. 

b b. 4 backs {j/rsfZ/a) of the hands and feet. 

6. 60 phalanges {anguli). 

7 a, 2 heels (jxlrsniy 

7 b. 2 clusters [kurca) of bones below (the long bones). 

8. 4 wrist-bones (ma/iika). 

9. 4 ankle-bones [gidpha). 

10. 4 bones of the forearms [aratni). 

11. 4 bones of the legs [jangha). 

12. 2 knee-caps {Jduu). 

13. 2 elbow-pans {kurjjara). 

14. 2 thighs («;•?<). 

15. 2 arms {Ld/ni) together with (16) the shoulders {amsa). 

17. 2 collar-bones {akmka). 

18. 2 palates {fdlu). 

19. 2 hip-blades {sroni-phalaka). 

20 a. 1 vulval bone {bkag-dsthi) in women, or penis-bone 

[vie dJir-ds flit) in men. 
20 b. 1 sacral bone {trika). 
20 c. 1 anal bone [gud-dstki). 

21. 35 back-bones {jjrstJia-gafa). 

22. 15 bones of the neck (grJvd). 

23. 2 collar-bones (Jatni). 

24. 1 (lower) jaw-bone (//anv-ast/ii), or chin. 

25. 2 basal tie-bones of the jaw (//ami-wu/n-baud/icma). 
26 a. 2 brows [laldta). 

26 b. 2 eyes {aksi). 

26 c. 2 cheeks [ganda). 

26 r/. 3 nasal bones {ndsikd) called ghona. 

27 a. 24 bones of the two sides (pdrh-a). 

27 b. 24 ribs {pdrsvako) forming a cage [panjara). 


27 c. 24 sockets of them {sthdlaka) resembling- tubercles {ar- 
huda), the whole (27 o-c) amounting- to 72. 

28. 2 temporal bones {fankhaka). 

29. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones {^urah-kapdla). 

30. 17 bones of the breast {yaksas). 
These are the three hundred and sixty bones.' 

\ 9. Inconsistencies and Incongruities of Gangddhar s 


1. Gang-adhar's recension of the statement of Charaka is full 
of inconsistencies and incongruities. To begin with, the sum 
of the several items of the list does not agree with the total 
stated at its conclusion. The latter is 360, while the former is 
either 370 or 368, according as No. 16 is counted separately, or 
together with No. 15, though the wording of the clause in the 
original seems to imply that Nos. 15 and 16 are to be taken as 
a single item. The attempt of Gangadhar to remove this 
inconsistency will be explained in the next paragraph. In 
the meantime, other inconsistencies are now enumerated in 
the order of their occurrence in the list of Gangadhar. 

(a) Nos. 4 and 5 h are obviously the very same bones, that is 
to say, the long bones of the metacarpus and metatarsus. It 
makes no difterence whether they are considered from the inner 
side (palm, or sole. No. 4) or from the outer side (back, imtha. 
No. 5 b) of the hand or foot. 

(h) Similarly Nos. 5 a and 7 h are the identical bones of the 
carpus and tarsus. This will be fully explained in the sequel 
(§ 49). Here it may be noted that kurca, or cluster, is the term 
for these bones which was introduced by Susrata in substitution 
of Charaka's term adhistjicma (or sf/mua), base (§ 28). Its 
appearance in the recension of Gangadhar proves that that 
recension cannot possibly rej)resent the genuine text of Charaka, 
but that it was prepared subsequently with a knowledge of the 
terminology of Susruta. This remark also applies to Gangadhar's 
use of the term kurpara for elbow-pan (olecranon, No. 13) ; see 
§§ 21, 28. 

(c) In No. 20 a, the distinction between the so-called ' vulval 
bone ' (bhagudJii) and the ' penis-bone ' {viedhrdsthi) involves an 


obvious anatomical absurdity. Neither the vulva nor the penis 
is a bony structure. It has arisen from a misunderstanding of 
Charaka's term bhagdstlii, which refers to the pubic bone, i.e. the 
pubic arch (§ 60). The word hliaga, by itself (but not in conjunction 
with asiJii^ bone) denotes also the vulva, &c., or the external female 
sexual organs ; and the term bhagdstJn, having- been erroneously 
identified with the term bhaga, led further to the erroneous fabri- 
cation, and introduction, of a term medhrdstM, or ' penis-bone ', 
for the male sexual organ (§ 60). The anatomical misconception 
involved in this procedure alone must be fatal to any claim of 
Gangadbar's recension to represent the genuine text of Charaka. 

[d) The principle of enumeration involved in Nos. 20 ^, 20 c, 
and 21, differs entirely from that of Charaka's genuine No. 22 
(§ 4) which counts forty-five back-bones. It will be shown in 
4;he sequel (§ 59 ; see also § 19) not only that the principle of 
counting which underlies the system of Gangadhar's recension 
presupposes a knowledge of Susruta's principle of counting the 
back-bones, but that it applies that principle in an unintelligent 

{e) No. 23 is affected by a double incongruity. The recension 
of Gangadhar counts two jatru. From this circumstance it is 
clear that he understands the word jatru to refer to the two 
collar-bones. Now this is a comparatively late meaning of the 
word which is not traceable farther back than the Awarakosa, 
a Sanskrit vocabulary of uncertain date, but probably written in 
the early part of the sixth century a. d. At all events, as will 
be shown in the sequel (§ 62), in the early medical works, jatru 
uniformly refers to the neck, or the windpipe in the neck. Its 
use, therefore, in the sense of collar-bone proves that the 
recension of Gangadhar cannot represent the genuine text of 
Charaka. Moreover, its use in that sense involves the further 
incongruity of counting the collar-bones twice; for No. 17, 
aksaka, also refers to the collar-bones. 

{/) No. 26 a, b, c, d, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 66, see 
also pp. 37 and 40), imply a view of the bones of the skull 
utterly at variance with that indicated in the genuine text of 
Charaka — a view, moreover, which presupposes a knowledge of 
Susruta's views, imperfectly understood. 


{g) No. 27 a, b, c, likewise, is affected by a double incongruity. 
One is of the formal kind : the ribs are pitchforked into the 
midst of the bones of the head, standing" as they do between 
No. 26, brows, eyes, cheeks and nose, and No. 28, temporal 
bones. Moreover, as will be shown in the sequel (§ 58), the 
terms of the three parts of No. 27, which, as given in the 
genuine text of Charaka, are perfectly intelligible and correct, 
convey no consistent or intelligible meaning in the recension of 

(//) No. 30 is open to several objections. It counts 17 breast- 
bones against 14 of Charaka's genuine text (§ 4, No. 24) ; and its 
larger count presupposes a knowledge of the system of Susruta. 
The position of the breast-bones, too, at the very end of the list, 
after the bones of the head, is very curious. It is to be noted, 
however, that on this point the recension of Gangadhar follows 
the arrangement of the list as given in the Non-medical 
Version of Yajnavalkya's Law-book and the Agni Purana (§ 16, 
No. 27). This circumstance, combined with the fact that in his 
commentary Gangadhar refers to those two non-medical works 
by name, supports the surmise that the recension of Gangadhar 
is not based on any manuscript authority, but is an ill-judged 
construction of his own. 

2. On three points, however, Gangadhar is undoubtedly right in 
his reconstruction. One of these refers to No. 16, amsa, shoulder. 
The traditional text of the statement of Charaka had erroneously 
duplicated that item (§ 6). The recension of Gangadhar corrects 
that error ; though, curiously enough, it does so by omitting the 
more accurate term aihsa-phalaka, shoulder-blade. This curious 
circumstance clearly points to the use, by Gangadhar, of the 
existing traditional text of Susruta's Compendium in the pre- 
paration of his recension of the statement of Charaka. For in 
that traditional text the term amsa is employed (though erro- 
neously, as shown in §§ 30, 55, 56) in the sense of amsa-phalaka 
to denote the shoulder-blade. The second point refers to No. 8, 
where the recension of Gangadhar reads ' four wiist-bones ' 
instead of the ' two wrist-bones ' of the traditional recension. 
Here, too, in all probability, his emendation is right (see § 52). 
The third point refers to the position of No. 23, jatru. As 


pointed out in § 5, this item is misplaced in the traditional list. 
The recension of Gangadhar, though it misinterprets the term, 
assig-ns to the item its correct place immediately after No. 22, 
grivd, neck-bones. In doing- so — it may be noted ag-ain — 
Gangadhar simply follows the guidance of Yajnavalkya's Law- 
book and the Agni Parana (§ 16, No. 20). 

J 10. Harmonization of Gangadha^'s Recension 

In his commentary, Gangadhar makes a strenuous attempt 
to harmonize the actual total, 368 or 370, of the several items 
of his list with the required total 360. It involves a very 
forced manipulation of the list, which will now be explained. 
His procedure is as follows. It divides itself into five steps. 
The first step refers to the extremities. Excluding Nos. 1 and 2 
as well as Nos. 5 a and 5 h, the remaining numbers down to 
No. 16, give us 128 bones, that is to say, thirty-two bones for 
each of the upper and lower extremities. Next, adding Nos. 1 
and 2, that is, sixty-four bones^ the total is raised to 192. The 
third step refers to the posterior part of the trunk. Transferring- 
No. 18 [tdlu, palate) to a subsequent step, and counting No. 20-"/ 
(the vulval and penis-bones) as a single item (for woman and 
man respectively), we obtain, from No. 17 to No. 21, a total of 
forty-two, which added to the previous total 192, raises it to 
234. The fourth step refers to the head and neck. Transferring- 
Nos. 23 [jatru) and 27 a, b, c (ribs, &c.) to the next step, but 
adding the previously omitted No. 18 (palate), and counting from 
No. 22 to No. 29, we obtain a total of thirty-five, which added 
to the previous total 234, makes up 269. The fifth step refers 
to the anterior portion of the trunk. Here come in the 
previously omitted Nos. 23 {jatru) and 27 a, b, c (ribs, &c.), to 
which is added No. 30 (breast-bones). These give a total of 
ninety-one, which, added to the previous total 269, finally results 
in the required total 360. 

This scheme of harmonization is open to several serious 
objections : 

1. It throws out of the count the two items No. 5 a, bases 
of the long bones, and No. 5 h, backs of the hands and feet. 




Gangadhar would ajipear to have realized (what has been 
already pointed out in § 9) that these two numbers merely 
duplicate the items enumerated as Nos. 7 h and 4 respectively. 
For the bones of the back of the hands and feet (No. 5 h) are 
precisely the long- bones (No. 4), and the bases (No. 5 a) are the 
clusters [kurca. No. 7 h). So far Gang-adhar, undoubtedly, is 
right ; but his error is that he counts only two clusters. The 
subjoined tabular statement makes this perfectly plain : 


No. 3. Nails {nakha) 

„ 4. Long bones (Saldkd) 

„ 5. Phalanges {anguli) 

,, 7a. Heels {jJdrsni) 

,, 7 b. Clusters {kilrca) 

,, 8. Wrist-bones (manika) 

„ 9. Ankle-boues {gtilpha) 

„ 10. Forearms (ora<?^^■) . 

,, 11. Legs {jangha) 

„ 12. Knee-caps {jdnu) . 

,, 13. Elbow-pans {kur^mra) 

„ 14. Thighs {iiru) 

„ 15. Arms {bahu) 






















This gives, as Gangadhar explains, a total of thirty-two bones?: 
for each of the four extremities, and a grand total of 128. But 
it will be noticed that he counts only the clusters [kurca) of the 
hands, that is, as we should call them, the cai'pal bones. He 
omits the other two kiirca^ that is, the clusters or tarsal bones 
of the feet. In their place, he counts two pdi'sni, that is, the 
heel-bones of the feet ; for, as will be seen from the table, 
Gangadhar's arrangement of the bones of the extremities 
proceeds on the principle of homology. Now the heel-bones 
do belong to the tarsal cluster of bones, but, though they are its 
prominent constituents, they do not exhaust the cluster. The 
truth is that Gangadhar's recension of the statement of Charaka 
is a faulty adaptation to the scheme of Susruta, which, as will 
be shown in the sequel (§ 49), consistently counts four kurca, or 
clusters of small bones. The genuine schemes of both, Susruta and 
Charaka, are consistent, each in its own way ; but the recension 


of Gangadhar is inconsistent, and proves itself thereby not to be 
the genuine recension of the scheme of Charaka. 

2. With regard to the term kurcci, as used in the recension of 
Gangadhar, there is a special grammatical difficulty. The clause 
in question, dve kurcdd7tas, is very difficult to construe. The 
only construction grammatically legitimate is to supply asthlni, 
that is, di^e asthmi kurc-ddhus, or ' two bones below the kurca '. 
This, however, yields no intelligible sense. In order to give the 
sense which Gangadhar wishes to extract from it, the clause 
should read dve kurce adJias, i. e. ' two kiirca below {scl. the long 
bones) ' ; and this form of the clause could become dve kurcddlias 
only through a very anomalous double saudhi, or contraction ; 
viz. kiirce adiias =■ kiirca\_y\udhas = kurcddlias. Even so, the 
difficulty remains that kurca — a word apparently first used by 
Susruta in its anatomical application — is not neuter {dve kurce), 
but masculine (dvau kurcati) ; see Susruta's Compendium, odrira 
Sihdna, chap, vi, clause 29 (Jiv. ed., p. 340). Avinasa Chandra, 
in his glosses to Gangadhar's recension which he adopts in his 
edition of Charaka's Compendium, apparently takes kurcddha to 
be a single noun, synonymous with kurca, but there exists no 
such noun in Sanskrit, and even if it did, the clause should read 
dve kurcddhe. 

3. A further difficulty in Gangadhar's scheme of harmonization 
is that it takes no account of the term athm, shoulder, which his 
recension couples with the fifteenth item. The clause of that 
item reads dve [scl. asthmi) hdkvoh s-dimai/ok, i.e. 'two bones in 
the arms together with the shoulders'. It seems obvious that 
arm and shoulder could not well be considered as constituting 
a single bone. Gangadhar avoids the difficulty by calmly 
ignoring the presence of ainsa, shoulder, and explaining the 
clause to mean that ' there is one bone in each arm '. On the 
other hand, Avinasa Chandra, in his glosses, counts amsa, 
shoulder, separately. Consequently, with his counting two bones 
in the arms, and two in the shoulders, the list works out a total 
of even 370 bones. Seeing that the recension of Gangadhar 
nowhere mentions the shoulder-blades [amsa phalaka)., it does 
seem not impossible that by the term amsa it intended to 
indicate those bones. If so, the dilemma presents itself: did 



Gangadhar intend shoulder-blade {amm) to be counted separately 
from arm [hdhi(), or to be taken as constituting* with it but 
a sing-le bone. In the former case, retaining* in other respects 
Gang-adhar's scheme of harmonization, the total works out at 
362 bones (that is, Gangadhar's 360 pins the two amso). In the 
latter case, we have the incongruity of treating arm plus 
shoulder-blade as a single bone. In either case, the recension 
of Gangadhar stands self-condemned as an incongruous and 
inconsistent compilation. 

4. While, as we have just seen, the shoulder-blade, though 
such a prominent bone of the human body, is not given any 
distinct recognition in the recension of Gangadhar, the collar- 
bone, on the other hand, is counted twice over, under the 
denominations aksaka and jatno in Nos. 17 and 23. The pair 
of aksaka Gangadhar explicitly defines in his commentary as 
being kanthdclho 'ihsakau, that is, ' the two shoulder-bones below 
the throat.' This definition only fits the collar-bones. Anyhow, 
it fits them better than the shoulder-blades. It is also the usual 
interpretation of the term aksaka, given by other commentators 
who refer it to the collar-bones. As to the term jatru, Gan- 
gadhar gives no definition of it ; but it is to be noted that, while 
the genuine recension of the statement of Charaka treats it as 
denoting a single bone, the recension of Gangadhar uses it as 
the name of a pair* of bones. It will be shown in the sequel 
(§ 62) that when used in the latter way the term always refers 
to the collar-bones. The duplication of the collar-bones in the 
recension of Gangadhar is obviously fatal to its claim of being 
a genuine presentation of the text of Charaka. 

^11. The Glosses of Chahrapdnidatta 

1. It has been stated in § 3 that the genuineness of 
Jivananda's Recension of Charaka's statement on the bones 
of the human body is confirmed by the commentary of Chakra- 
panidatta written some time in the middle of the eleventh 
century a. d. Manuscripts of this work are very rare, and in a 
more or less incomplete state. The subjoined translation has been 
made from the Tiibingen University Library MS., M. a. I. 463 


(Cat. No. 146), ^ where the ovig-inal passag-e occurs in vol. iii, 
fols. 284 h and 285 a. It runs as follows (Original Text in § 75) : 

2. ' With reference to the list of bones, the words " head and 
neck " (siro-gnvam) must be taken together, and signify but one 
part, viz. the head. The word " trunk " {antarddhi) refers to 
the middle part of the body. The words "and sixty" (sasfa) 
mean sixty additional to three hundred. The term " dental 
socket " {(Icmt-olukhala) signifies the place where the tooth is 
fixed. Though in the chapter on the various kinds of food and 
drink, the nails {nakha) are relegated to the waste products of 
the body on account of their being developed from the waste 
portion of what is taken as food, nevertheless, in the present 
case, on account of their resemblance to the bones, they are 
counted among the latter.^ In each finger and toe there are 

' The original of this MS. was in Benares in 1873, where a coijy 
of it was procured by me for the late Professor von Roth. It is rather 
inaccurate, but fairly complete, there being only a very large lacuna 
in the sixth section [CiMtsita Sthdna). Through the kind inter- 
mediation of Professor R. Garbe I have the loan of it. Tubingen. 
No. 1 45, is another incomplete copy of tlie same Benares MS. A second 
MS. of the same commentary is recorded as No. 2160 in the Notices of 
Sanskrit MSS. It is described as ' incomplete, containing only the 
first five books '. A third MS. is being used by Kaviraj Harinath 
Visarada in his edition of Charaka's Compendium with Chakrapanidatta's 
Commentary (Calcutta, saka 1817 = a.d. 1895). Afourth MS., ' com- 
plet et bien conserve ' is announced by Dr. P. Cordier in his Recentes 
Decouvertes, p. 10, and (according to a private letter from him, 
October 30, 1904) is being copied for him. From a few passages, 
kindly collated by him for me it appears to agree closely with the 
Benares MS. referred to above. A copy, from it, of the osteological 
statement was kindly supplied by him to me (§ 75). Further, two 
MSS., Nos. 2503 and 2855, are stated in Notices, vol. xi, p. 39, to exist 
in the Government of India Collection in Calcutta, but on inquiry 
I am informed that No. 2855 is lost ; and No. 2503, which I obtained 
on loan, I find on examination to be not a MS. of Chakrapanidatta's 
Commentary, but a fragment of the text of Charaka's Compendium, 
viz. the 30th chapter of the Siltra Sthdna and the Vimdna Sthdna. 

' The reference is to the 28th chapter of the Introductory Section 
{Sutra Sthdna) of Charaka's Compendium. It is there explained that 
the food taken by man contains a good part {prasdda) and a waste 
part (kitta). The former is assimilated by the system and turned into 
chyle {rasa), which, in its turn, serves to build up the various parts 
of the body (blood, muscles, bones, &c.). The latter is secreted by 
the body as its waste products {mala), the nails, in particular, being 
secreted by the bones. 

D 2 


three joints [parvan). Hence, as there are twenty fino-ers and 
toes, there are sixty bones in the joints. As to the third joint 
of the thumb and great toe, it must be understood to be con- 
tained within the respective hand or foot. The long- bones 
{^aldkd), too, of the thumb and great toe, must be understood 
to be of small size. The place where the long bones of the 
fingers and the toes meet, there is their base {adkisthdna). The 
word " knee " {jduu) signifies the knee-cap [jdmtka], marking 
the articulation of leg and thigh. The " two collar-bones " 
laJcsaka) are the two pegs that run athwart the anterior part 
of the trunk between the articulations of the shoulder and the 
throat.^ The two "palatal cavities" {tdlusaka) signify the two 
palatal bones. The " pubic bone " {hhagdsthi) is the cross 
\tirya(j) bone that serves to compact the two hip-bones in front. 
By the term " sockets " {stlidlaka) are meant the shallow (ninma) 
bases for the ends of the ribs ; and by the words " tubercles 
fitting into the sockets" [dhdlak-drhuddni) are meant the tubercle- 
like bones which occur in the middle between the ribs and the 
shallows. The " nose " [ndsikd), the " prominences of the cheeks " 
(gandakuta), and the " brows " {laldta) must be taken together, 
and counted as a single bone. According to those who read the 
three items separately, the nose, the prominences of the cheeks, 
and the brows constitute three distinct bones ; but in this way 
the total [360] does not work out.' 

3. The main interest of this commentary lies not so much 
in the explanations which it gives of the several items of the 
list of bones, as in the evidence it affords of the state of the text 
of Charaka in the eleventh century. The value of the explana- 
tion is much impaired by its apparently fragmentary character. 
Out of the thirty items in the list of Charaka (§ 4), it comments 
only on twelve (viz. Nos. 1-6, 12, 17, 19, 21, 25 a, b, c, 28). For 
no less than eighteen items (Nos. 7-11, 13-16, 18, 20, 22-4, 
26, 27, 29, 30) we have no comment ; and as there are among 
them some not quite transparent terms (e.g. Nos. 9, 13, 18,27), 
it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the text of the com- 
mentary has not been preserved intact. 

^ The original of this clause is very corrupt : it has been con- 
jecturally z-estored ; its general purport seems clear enough. — Kostha 
signifies the whole of the anterior pai't of the trunk, as opposed to 
prstha, or the whole of the ' back ', or posterior part. The articulations 
referred to are the scapulo-clavicular (amsa) and the sterno-clavicular 
{jatru, see § 62). 


4. Regarding the evidence on the condition of the text of 
Charaka's statement, the fortunate preservation of Chakrapani- 
datta's gloss on No. 19, tdlusake, shows the misplacement of 
that item as already extant in his time. The extreme antiquity, 
indeed, of this particular misplacement, as has already been 
pointed out in § 5, is guaranteed by its occurrence in the 
Non-medical Version, as well as in the Medical Version of Bheda 
(§ 12). In default of any gloss on No. 18, jatru, and No. 23, 
grivd, it must remain uncertain, whether the\^ were misplaced 
in Charaka's text as Chakrajjanidatta saw it, or whether he read 
them in their right position as shown in the Non-medical 
Version (§ 16). Again the commentary's silence on No. 9, 
manika. No. 13, jchm-kajidlika, and No. 16, amsa, leaves it also 
uncertain how far Chakrapanidatta's text may have supported 
the emendations suggested in § 6. 

5. Of great importance is the remark of Chakrapanidatta on 
No. 28, the complex bone of nose, cheeks, and brows. For, first, 
it shows that he must have read Charaka's text as given in 
Jivananda's recension, and that, aceordingh^ Gangadhar's recen- 
sion is not genuine. For the latter breaks up the complex into 
three parts, and makes each part to consist of two bones. Its 
procedure, therefore, results in producing a total of six bones, 
where the genuine recension has only a single bone, and where 
even the rival text, which Chakrapanidatta mentions, has no 
more than three bones. Secondly it renders it very probable, 
that when speaking of this rival text, Chakrapanidatta was 
referring to the Medical Version as traditionally presented in 
the Compendium of Bheda. For that Version (§§ 12, 13) makes 
No. 28 to consist of three bones, and consequently works out 
a wrong total (362). 

J 12. Tfie Medical Version according to Bheda 

1. As stated in § 1, Atreya's theory of the skeleton is found 
also in Bheda's Compendium [Bheda Samhltd). Of this compen- 
dium, at present, no more than a single manuscript is known to 
exist, dated about 1650 a. d., and preserved in the Palace Library 


in Tanjore (Bnrnell's Catalog-ue, No. 10773).^ The arrange- 
ment of the Compendium of Bheda agrees with that of the 
Compendium of Charaka. Accordingly his statement on the 
bones of the human body is also found in the seventh chapter 
of the Anatomical Section [Sdrlra S(hdna). It runs as follows 
(Original Text in § 76) : 

2, ' There are three hundred and sixty bones. These are the 
following : 

1. 32 teeth {danta). 

2. 32 sockets (?</«/^/^«7«) of the teeth. 

3. 20 nails {nak/ta). 

4. 60 phalanges [anguli). 

5. 20 long bones Ji^mldkd) of the hands and feet. 

6. 4 bases [adliistjidna) of the long bones. 

7. 2 heels [pdrsni). 

8. 4 ankle-bones {g^dpJia) of the two feet. 

9. 2 wrist-bones [manika) of the two hands. 

10. 4 bones of the two forearms [arafni). 

11. 4 bones of the two legs [Janff/ia). 

12. 2 knee-caps (jdiiu). 

13. 2 elbow-pans {jdnu-kapdlika). 

14. 2 hollow bones [nalaka) of the two thighs (ui-n). 

15. [2 hollow bones (nalaka) of the two arms (bd/w).'^ 
16 a. 2 shoulders {amsa). 

16 h. 2 shoulder-blades [amsa-pJialaka). 

17. 2 collar-bones {akmka). 

18. 1 windpipe (jafru). 

19. 2 palatal cavities [fdl-'usaka). 

20. 2 hip-blades [sroni-jilialaka). 

21. 1 pubic bone {hhag-dsthi). 

22. 45 back-bones {'frstha-gat-dstlii) . 

23. 1 5 neck-bones [grivd). 

24. 14 breast-bones (uras). 

^ Of this MS. I possess an excellent copy in Telugu, which I owe 
to the munificence of the Government of Madras, by whose orders 
it has been prepared for me (November, 1905). Dr. P. Cordier also 
possesses two copies, one in Telugu, the other in Devanagari, the latter 
being a transcript from his Telugu copy (information by letter of 
September 10, 1904 ; see also Recentes Decouvertes, pp. 4, 5). Professor 
Aufrecht's Catalogus Catalogorum, vol. i, p. 416, notices another MS., 
' Eadh. 32,' in a native library in Lahore; but the existence of it at 
present lacks verification. 


25 a. 24 ribs [pdrhaka). 

25 b. 24 sockets {stiidlaka) in the two sides. 

25 e. 24 tubercles [arbuda) fitting- into the sockets. 

26. 1 (lower) jaw-bone {hanv-ast/ti), or chin. 

27. 2 basal tie-bones of the jaw {hanu-?mla-bandhana). 
28 a. 1 nasal bone (nds-dst/ti). 

28 b. 1 bone in the prominences of the jaw {Jiann-kuta) 
28 6'. 1 bone in the brows {laldtct). 

29. [2 temples {mnklui)^ 

30. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones [Brsa-kajKlla).' 

^13. Peculiarities and Defects of Bhedas Statement 

With reference to the condition of the text of the statement 
of Bheda the following points deserve notice : 

1. Nos. 15 and 29, which are enclosed in angular brackets, 
are missing in the original Sanskrit text (§ 7&). That these 
omissions are due to clerical lapses in the existing MS. is 
obvious from the fact that otherwise the required total (360) 
does not work out. Accordingly in the list (§ 12) they have 
been supplied. 

2. In No. 28 b, Bheda's text has the peculiar reading hanv- 
kilta, prominence of the jaw, where Charaka's text (§ 4) has 
ganda-kuta, prominence of the cheek. It will be shown in 
§ 65 that though both terms may well be synonymous, the term 
/mnu-kiita is really inconsistent with the system of Atreya. It 
is not improbably, therefore, a false reading for ganda-kuta. 

3. In the original text (§ 76) the statement appears to contain 
two additional items, which have been omitted in the translation 
(§ 12). In reality these additions are merely explanatory 
(marginal) glosses which have become wrongly incorporated 
into the text. First, No. 9, in the original text, runs as follows : 
' two manika, two pdnika, of the two hands.' Here the two words 
manika and 7;rF^«/^«, are simply synonyms, explanatory of each 
other ; and either manika or pdnika is the intrusive gloss, more 
probably, to judge from its secondary position, the latter. In 
the India Office MS., No. 881 (Cat. No. 2640), the word pdnike 
is actually substituted for manike. Secondly, in No. 19, the 
original text has ' two tdlnmka, two cubuka '. Here, probably, 


there has occurred a misplaced insertion of the g-loss ctihika. 
That word means ' chin ', and probably served as a marginal 
gloss to explain the term hanv-asthi (No. 26). By some mis- 
chance or misunderstanding it got misplaced, and was then 
wrongly inserted into the text after tdlusaka (No. 19). Both 
hanvasthi and tdlusaka are very unusual terms, and the transfer 
of the gloss cnbvka from one to the other is readily intelligible 
in the hands of an ignorant scribe. 

4, There is a difficulty with respect to the total of the listed 
bones. According to the introdvictory clause of the list, its 
total should be 360, but the addition of its items actually works 
out a total of 362. It is obvious that there must be a defect 
somewhere in the list. The probability, as will be shown in 
the sequel (§ 66), is that the defect lies in No. 28 a, b, c. The 
real text of the clause expressing that item must have run 
similarly to that in the list of Charaka (§ 4) ; and instead 
of a nasal bone, and a bone for the prominences of the jaw and 
of the brows respectively (i. e. three bones altogether), it must 
have spoken of but one bone, that is, a single complex bone, 
including all three organs : nose, prominences, and brows. With 
this correction we obtain the correct total 360. 

5. It is probable, however, that a further correction should 
be made. It will be noted that all the inconsistencies and 
corruptions, noticed in the case of the list of Charaka (§§ 5, 6), 
occur also in the list of Bheda. Accordingly, just as in the 
list of Charaka, No. 16 «, amsa, shoulders, should be omitted, 
and on the other hand, in No. 9, ' four wrist-bones ' should be 
read instead of ' two wrist-bones '. The total 360 thus remains 

^ 14. Non-medical Version of Atreyas System 

1. The existence of a Version of the theory of Atreya on 
the skeleton in some works of a non-medical character has been 
referred to in § 1. This Non-medical Version is found in two 
legal and two religious text-books. The former are the Law- 
book of Yajnavalkya {Ydjhavalkya Bharma-mstrd) and the 
Institutes of Vishnu ( Vknu Srnrti). The latter are the Vishnu 


Dharmottara {V unu-dharmoUara) and the Agni Parana {Agni 

2. The Law-book of Yajnavalkya is a versified treatise of 
Hindu law, the approximate date of which is about the middle 
of the fourth century a. d.^ 

3. The Institutes of Vishnu, on account of its being- partly 
written in prose, is supposed to belong-, at least in its orig-inal 
form, to a considerably earlier date ; but in its final redaction, it 
is placed (by Professor Macdonell) ' not earlier than 200 a. d.', or 
(by Professor Jolly) ' in the third or fourth century a. d.' ^ But 
it is probable that isolated portions have been interpolated into 
the work at much later dates. In any case, in respect of the 
passag-e containing- the Non-medical Version of the skeleton, 
there is sufficient evidence (§ 22) proving that it cannot have 
existed in the Institutes of Vishnu before the twelfth century 
a. d. Indeed, the very fact that the passag-e is in no way 
required by its context, sug-gests its being- a much later otiose 
amplification, interpolated into the text from some other work. 
The surmise is confirmed by the fact that the passag-e in question 
is not found in all MSS. of the Institutes, On this point I 
have been able to test the following seventeen MSS. : -^ 

1. India Office, No. 915 (Cat. 1342 = Jollv V^).* 

2. „ „ No. 1545 (Cat. 1345 = Jolly V^). * 

3. „ „ No. 1247 (Cat. 1347 = Jolly V^}. 

4. „ „ No. 540 (Cat. 1341 = Jolly V). 

5. „ „ No. 200 (Coll. Buhler = Jolly V*). * 

' See Professor Jolly's Recht and Sitte, p. 21, in the Cyclopaedia of 
Tndo-Aryan Research ; and Professor Macdonell's Sanskrit Literature, 
p. 429. 

^ Professor Macdonell, ibid., p. 428 ; Professor Jolly, ibid., p. 7 ; 
also in Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, Introduction, p. xxxii. 

^ The first five MSS. were used by Professor Jolly in his edition in 
the Bibliotheca Indica. The first six MSS. have been examined by 
myself; so also extracts from Nos. 13-17, kindly supplied to me by 
Mahamahopadhyilya Hara Prasada Shastri. For the examination 
of No. 7 I am indebted to the kindness of Rao Bahadur M.Rangacluirya; 
of Nos. 8 and 9 to that of Professor S. K. Bhandarkar; of Nos. 10-12 
to that of Pi-ofessor K. B. Pathak. 

* Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are provided with Nanda Pandita's Com- 


6. India Office, No. 913 (Cat. 1340). 

7. Government Oriental Library, Madras, No. 87. 

8. Elphinstone College, Bombay, No. 162 (Coll. Biihler). 

9. „ „ „ No. 174 (Coll. BUhler).^ 

10. Deccan College, No. 19 (Bhandarkar's Report, 1880). 

11. „ » No. 20 (Bhandarkar's Report, 1882). 

12. „ „ No. 155 (Peterson's Report, III). 

13. Calcutta, Sanskrit College, No. 5. 

14. „ „ „ No. 62.1 

15. Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. II a. 10. 

16. „ „ „ No. II A. 11. 

17. „ „ „ No. II B. 25.1 

From among these MSS., twelve (Nos. 1, 2, 4-9, 13-15, 17) 
contain the passage in question, while five (Nos. 3, 10-12, 16) 
do not contain it. It appears to be generally assumed, on the 
authority of Max Muller,^ that the Law-book of Yajnavalkya 
borrowed the passage from the Institutes of Vishnu. The 
evidence which will be adduced in § 22, goes to show that 
the truth is rather the reverse. The passage, most probably, 
was inserted into the Institutes by some one who was familiar 
with the Mitakshartl commentary on the Law-book. This must 
have happened at a comparatively late date, though at least 
some time before 1622 a. d. For Nanda Pandita, who wrote 
his Vaijayantl commentary on the Institutes in that year,'^ 
comments on the passage. 

4. The Vishnu Dharmottara is held to be a part of the 
Garuda Purana. Its existence as early as about 1100 a. d. is 
guaranteed by a quotation in the Ddnasdgara, a work ascribed 
to King Ballala Sena of Bengal, who reigned about that time. 
Numerous detached portions of the work are known to exist. 
Among these there is one called 'the Chapter on Anatomy' 
{Sdrlrddhyaya), of which the Tiibingen University Library 
possesses a unique MS., M. a. I. 483 (Cat. No. 167).^ The 
treatise, thus called, professes to be a versified compilation from 

' Nos. 9, 14 and 17 are provided with Nanda Pandita's Commentary. 
^ Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, Introduction, p. xx. 
^ Professor Jolly's edition, Pref., p. 1, and his translation, Introd., 
p. xxxiii. 

■* Through the liberality of the authorities of the Library who loaned 
it to me, 1 was enabled carefully to examine it. 


the Compendia of Charaka and Snsrnta. Its statement on the 
skeleton, however, is a literal extract from the Law book of 

5. The date of the Agni Parana is not known, but the point 
is of small interest ; for there can be no doubt that the 369th 
chapter, entitled ' the Parts of the Human Body ' [Sdrlrdvdj/avdJi), 
in which the statement on the skeleton occurs, is not a portion 
of the original work. A comparison of it with the ' Chapter 
on Anatomy ' in the Vishnu Dharmottara Purana shows that 
about two-thirds of its contents (i. e. twenty-nine out of a total 
of forty -three verses) are literally plagiarized from it. Moreover, 
it betrays itself as a later intei-polation by its very position in 
the book, occurring as it does after chapters 367 and 368 which 
treat of the Dissolution of the World [j^mla/^a), and before 
chapter 370 which treats of the various hells [naraka)^ while 
its proper place would have been with chapters 278-85 which 
treat of Medicine.^ A further corroborative evidence is the fact 
that it is wanting in many MSS. The Bibliotheca Indica 
edition (as stated in its Preface, p. ii, and Introd,, p. xxxvii) is 
based on ten MSS.~ Out of these, eight MSS. appear to have 
contained the chapter in question, while it was wanting in two. 
To these two must be added the India Office MS., No. xxv 
(W. 4), and the Bodleian Library MS., No. 42, which I have 
examined myself, and neither of which contains the chapter. 
Neither is it contained in the two MSS. of the Asiatic Society' 
of Bengal, No. Ill h. 38 and No. Ill g. 31, which have been 
collated for me in Calcutta. This gives eight MSS. for, and 
six against the originality of the chapter. As one of those 

^ These chapters px'ofess to give Susruta's system of medicine. But 
there is very little distinctly Susrutiyan to be found in them ; nor, for 
that matter, anything more distinctly Charakiyan. A good test case 
is the half-verse 8, on p. 29, in chapter 278, which agrees with 
neither Charaka (ed. 1896, p. 479) nor .Susruta (p. 824) nor Vagbhata. 
On the other hand, two verses (13 and 14 on p. 35 in chapter 279) 
of an incantation are found also in Susruta {Sutra Sthana, 44th 
adhijaya, p. 160). 

* The editor had eleven MSS., but he discarded one at an early 
stage. One of his MSS. is now in the India Office, No. 5 (7) of the 
Saurendra Mohun Tagore Collection. The statement on. the skeleton 
is found on fol. 115 6, II. 2 ff. 


eig-ht MSS. is dated in saka 1595, i.e. a. d. 1673 (Ed., pref., 
p. ii), it follows that the interpolation of the chapter goes back, 
at least, to the middle of the seventeenth century. 

§ 15. The Recensions of the Non-medical Version 

1. The evidence given in the preceding paragraph renders 
it practically certain that the Law-book of Yajnavalkya is the 
original source of the Non-medical Version, from which it 
passed into the Institutes of Vishnu, and into the two Puranas. 
With regard to the two latter, there can be no doubt on this 
point, seeing that their versified statements of the Non-medical 
Version (original Texts and Translations, in § 86) are mere copies 
of the versified statement in the Law-book of Yajnavalkya. 
The case of the Institutes - of Vishnu might at first seem 
doubtful because of its statement of the Non-medical Version 
being in prose, while that in the Law-book is in verse. But 
it will be shown in § 22 that, while in essentials the two 
statements are identical, their points of difference indicate that 
the author of the statement in the Institutes of Vishnu must 
have been familiar with the statement in the Law-book of 
Yajnavalkya. The fact, therefore, of his making his statement 
in prose and in very concise terms must be explained by his 
desire to write it in conformity with the general character 
of the diction of the Institutes. 

2. On account of their essential identity, the four examples 
may be considered to represent a single recension of the Non- 
medical Version, of which the example contained in the Law-book 
of Y^ajnavalkya forms the representative type. As such the latter 
will be treated in the sequel of the present dissertation. There 
exists, however, a rather different recension of the Non-medical 
Version — differing in essential points regarding terminology 
as well as numeration — in the commentary of Gangadhar 
which accompanies his edition of Charaka's Compendium [Sdura 
Sthcum, pp. 187, 188). It becomes necessary, therefore, again 
to inquire into the evidence of the genuineness of the two 
recensions. Brieflv stated the case is similar to that of the 
two recensions of the Medical Version in Charaka's Compendium. 


For the recension of Gangadhar there exists — so far as my know- 
ledge goes — not a single MS. authority, while all MSS. that 
I have been able to examine, and all old commentaries, at 
present known, support the recension as given in the published 
editions of the two legal treatises and the Agni Purana.^ These 
are : Professor Stenzler's edition of the Ydjhavalhya Dliarmamstra 
(London, 1849), verses 84-90 of the third chapter {adhydya), on 
pp. 89, 90 (translated on pp. 98, 99) ; Professor Jolly's edition 
of the Vismi Smrtl in the Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta, 1881), 
clauses 55-79 of the 96th section, on pp. 196, 197 (translated 
in the Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, pp. 283-5) ; Dr. Rajen- 
dralal Mitra's edition of the Ag7ii Turdna, in the Bibliotheca 
Indica (Calcutta, 1879), verses 27^-33 of the 369th chapter, 
on pp. 308-9 of the third volume. The MSS. (twelve and eight 
respectively) which support the published recensions contained 
in the Institutes of Vishnu and the Agni Purana have been 
already enumerated in the preceding paragraph. It remains 
to enumerate the MSS. of the Law-book of Yajnavalkya which 
I have examined. There are fifteen of these, and they all 
support the published recension. They are the following : 

1. India Office, No. 1079] 

2. „ No. 2035 

3. „ No. 20601 

with the Mitakshara 

4. „ No. 3022, with Apararka's commentary. 

5. „ No. 1278, with Sulapani's „ 

6. „ No. 1176, with Mitra Misra's „ 
7-10. „ Nos. 1786, 2074, 2167, 2823. 

11. „ No. 23 (50), S. M. Tagore Collection. 

12. Bodleian Library, No. 55. 

13. Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. Ib. 51. 
14,15. „ „ „ No. II A. 10, 11. 

3. Of old commentaries on the Law-book of Yajnavalkya we 
have four.^ The oldest is the Mitakshara [Mitdksard) written 

' The statement in the Vishnu Dharmottara Purana has not yet 
been published. 

'^ There exists a fifth commentary by Visvarupa, which is still older 
than the Mitakshara, and has been described by Professor Jolly in the 
Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1904, 
Heft 4. Only one MS. of it appears to be known, which, however, 
is not accessible to nie. 


by Vijnanesvara [Vijudnehara), who lived about 1100 a. d. 
A near contemporary of his is Apararka or Aparaditya, who 
wrote his commentary about 1150 a. d. Rather later comes 
oulapani in the fifteenth, and Mitra Misra in the seventeenth 
century a. d.^ The latter two commentators follow the lead 
of the Mitakshara, while Apararka, in many points, takes a line 
of his own ; but all four comment on a text which was identical 
with the published recension. 

4. On the Institutes of Vishnu we have the commentary 
of Nanda Pandita, called Faijayantl, which was written in 
1622 A. D.,^ and which supports the published recension of the 

^ 16. Tfie Genuine Recension of the Non-medical Version 

The genuine Non-medical Version, as it is found in the 
Law-book of Yajnavalkya, in its third chapter, verses 84-90, runs 
as follows (Original Text in § 77) : 

' (In the body) there are six parts {anga) ; and of bones there 
are in it three hundred and sixty ; namely : 

[Verse 85] 1. 64 teeth (danta) with their sockets {sthdla). 

2. 20 nails {iiakha). 

3. 20 long bones {kddkd) of the hands and feet. 

4. 4 bases {sthdna) of the long bones. 
[Verse 86] 5. 60 phalanges {angvli). 

6. 2 heels (pdrpii). 

7. 4 ankle-bones [gvlpha), 

8. 4 bones of the forearms {o.ratni). 

9. 4 bones of the legs [jafigJia). 
[Verse 87] 10. 2 knee-caps (jdnu). 

11. 2 elbow-pans (kapola). 

12. 2 thighs {urn-phalaka). 

13. 2 shoulder-blades {amsa-samudbJiava). 

14. 2 collar-bones (aha). 

15. 2 palatal cavities {tdlusaka). 

16. 2 hij5-blades {srotii-phahika). 

^ See Professor Jolly's Recht und Sitte, p. 33, in the Cyclopaedia 
of Indo- Aryan Research. 

'^ For the date, see Professor Jolly's edition, Preface, p. i ; also his 
Translation, in the Sacred Books of the East, volume vii, Introduction, 
p. xxxiii. 


[Verse 88] 17. 1 pubic bone {bJiag-dsthi). 

18. 45 back-bones {prsfJia). 

19. 15 neck-bones [grlvd). 

20. 1 windpipe {jatrii). 

21. 1 (lower) jaw-bone {Jianu), or chin. 
[Verse 89] 22. 2 basal bones of the jaw-bone [Jianu-m'ula). 

23 <:/. 3 bones constituting' brows, eyes, and cheeks, 

( laldt-dksl-ga n (la) . 
23 h. 1 nasal bone {ndsd) called ghana. 
24. 72 ribs (pdrsvahi) with their sockets {%tlidlaka) 
and tubercles {arbuda). 
[Verse 90] 25. 2 temporal bones [mnkhaka). 

26. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones [nrah-kapdla). 

27. 17 breast-bones (urns). 
These bones make up the skeleton of man.' 

This list works out the correct total 360. 

^17, Merits, Defects, and Peculiarities of the Non- 
medical Version 

1. As has already been pointed out in §§ 5, 6, the advan- 
tage of the Non-medical Version for text-critical purposes is 
that it confirms the corrections sug-g-ested in those paragraphs. 

{a) It places the organs of the neck, that is, No. 19, neck- 
bones [prlvd), and No. 20, windpipe [jatru), in their proper place 
in connexion with, and immediately before, the bones of the 

[h) It avoids the reduplication of the words mhsa in connexion 
with No. 13, and jdtm, in connexion with No. 11. 

2. On the other hand, the Non-medical Version has three 
defects ; namely : 

{a) It places No. 24, the ribs together with their sockets and 
tubercles, in the midst of the bones which belong to the head. 

(b) It also places No. 27, breast-bones [uras), at the end of 
the whole list, that is, practically along with the bones of the 

{c) The preceding two defects are mere misplacements, but 
the most serious defect of the Non-medical Version is that 
it entirely ignores the two bones of the arms [bdhi) and the 


four bones of the wrists (nmnika). These bones, as a reference 
to the lists of the Medical Versions of Chavaka (§§ 4, 7) and 
Bheda (§ 12) shows, should have been enumerated between 
Nos. 7 and 8, and Nos. 12 and 13 respectively. 

3. Further, the Non-medical Version has three peculiarities ; 
namely : 

{a) It uses the peculiar term amsa-samudbJiava^ sprung* from 
the shoulder, to denote the shoulder-blade, instead of the term 
amsa-phalak(( of the Medical Version (No. 16 b in §§ 4, 12). 

Of far greater importance than this verbal difference are the 
following two : 

{h) In No. 27 it counts seventeen breast-bones, instead of the 
fourteen of the Medical Version (No. 24 in §§ 4, 12). 

(c) In No. 23 a it adds the eyes to the brows and cheeks, 
which alone are named in the Medical Version (No. 28 in 

4. With regard to the third peculiarity the following point 
is to be noted. The Medical Version, as preserved by Charaka, 
counts a single bone for the complex of nose, cheeks, and brows 
(No. 28 in § 4). But there existed, as Chakrapanidatta tells us 
(§ 11), another view, presented in Bheda's Compendium (§ 12), 
according to which the Medical Version is interpreted as counting 
three bones, that is, one for each of the three items : nose, cheeks, 
brows. By adopting this rival view, and adding the eyes as 
a fourth item, the author of the Yajnavalkyan Law-book obtained 
four bones (Nos. 23 a, h) against the single bone of the Medical 
Version, that is, he obtained three extra bones. Similarly by 
his counting seventeen breast-bones against the fourteen of 
the Medical Version, he obtained another three extra bones. 
Thus both operations together gave him six extra bones. The 
rationale of his procedure is now obvious : its intention is to 
correct the shortage of six bones caused by the omission of the 
arms and wrists, as thus : 

Required total . . . . . . .360 

Omitted : 2 arms, 4 wrist-bones ... 6 

Balance ...... 354 

Add 3 breast-bones and 3 facial bones . . 6 

Total 360 


It may be particularly noted that this corrective result affords 
a strong confirmation of the suggestion, put forward in § 6, that 
the true number of the bones of the wrists is four, not two, as 
the traditional list of Charaka (§ 4) now has it. 

5. With regard to the source from which the Non-medical 
Version derived its peculiarities, it will be shown in the sequel 
(§§ 29, 30, 33) that it was, in all probability, the statement of 
Susruta on the bones of the human body. 

^18. Gangddhar s Recension of the Non-medical Version 

In his commentary on Charaka's Compendium, in illustra- 
tion of the statement of Susruta (§ 27) that the professors 
of General Medicine hold the number of bones to be 360, 
Gangadhar quotes the Non-medical Version, as he states him- 
self, from the Law-book of Yajnavalkya and the Agni Purana. 
As given by him, that Version is not quite easy to follow, but 
it would seem to yield the following list, which works out the 
required total of 360 (Original Text in § 78) : 

[Verse 85] 1. 64 teeth (damiia) with their sockets {sthdla). 

2. 20 nails [nakha). 

3. 20 long bones {saldkd). 

4. 4 bases [stJulna) of the long bones. 
[Verse 86] 5. 60 phalanges {angidi). 

6. 4 heels i^pdrpii). 

7 a. 4 wrist-bones {manika). \ ^ 

7 b. 4 ankle-bones {gidpha). j 

8. 4 bones of the fx)rearm {ciratni), 

9. 4 bones of the legs [jang/ia). 
[Verse 87] 10. 2 knee-caps (Jdmi). 

11. 2 elbow-pans {kurpant). 

12. 2 thighs {uru-jihalaka). 

13. 2 shoulder-blades {cimsa-saniudbluiva). 

14. 2 collar-bones {aksaka). 

15. 2 palatal cavities [tdlfimka). 

16. 2 hip-blades ijironi-phalaka). 
[Verse 88] 17. 1 pubic bone {bhag-dst/ii). 

18 a. 1 sacral bone (irika). 
18 b. 1 anal bone {pdiju). 
18 c. 35 back-bones [jn-st/ia). 

' These two items of bones are stated in Gangadhar's list to be 
situated 'below the clusters' {kurca). 



19. 15 neck-bones {grlvd). 

20. 2 collar-bones {jatru). 

21. 1 (lower) jaw-bone [Jiami) or chin. 
[Verse 89] 22. 2 basal bones of the jaw {hanu-mula). 

23 a. 6 bones constituting- brows, eyes, and cheeks 

{Jaldt-aksi-ga nf]aJ) . 
23 h. 1 nasal bone {ndsd) called ghana. 
24. 72 ribs {'pdrHvoko) with their shallow sockets 
{sthdlaka) and tubercles {arhiicla). 
[Verse 90] 25. 2 temporal bones {sankhaka). 

26. 4 cranial pan -shaped bones {^irah-kapdla). 

27. 15 breast-bones (ums). 

f 19. Criticism of Gangddhars Recension 

1. At the end of the Non-medical Version, as given by 
him, Gang-adhar adds the remark : ' this is the statement found 
in the Agneya Ptirdna and in the Ydjhavalkya. Samhitd Law-book.' 
As a fact, however, it is not a real quotation that he gives, but 
an ' edited ' recension of the statement. For his recension differs 
considerably in several points from the ti'aditional recension in 
the Law-book. 

(a) In No. 6 Gangadhar counts four heels instead of two. 

{h) In No. 18 c he counts thirty-five back-bones instead of 

(c) In No. 20 he coimts two jatrv, (collar-bones) instead of 
one (windpipe). 

{d) In No. 23 a he counts six bones instead of three. 

(e) In No. 27 he counts fifteen breast-bones instead of seven- 

(/■) In No. 7 a he inserts four wrist-bones. 

{g) In Nos. 18 f/, h he inserts a sacral and an anal bone. 

2. Among these differences, the items c, d, and _/ enable us to 
see the reason which led Gangadhar to elaborate his emended 
recension of the Non- medical Version. We have seen (§ 17) that 
the traditional Non-medical Version entirely neglects to count the 
two arms and four wrist-bones. From the fact of Gangadhar 
counting the four wrist-bones, it is eWdent that he had noticed 
the defect of the traditional recension. But it may be asked 
why he did not also count the two aims. The answer is indicated 


by the differences noted in the items c and d. They show that 
Gang-adhar was acquainted with the interpretation of Vijna- 
nesvara in his Mitakshara Commentary (§§ 20, 21). He followed 
that commentator in including the arms under the term 
' forearm ' (No. 8, aratni) ; also, in takings jatru to refer to the 
two collar-bones, as well as in allotting- two bones to each of 
the three items : brows, eyes, cheeks. As Vijnanesvara, however, 
failed to realize the omission of the four wrist-bones, Gang-adhar 
supplied the deficiency. Moreover, he did not follow Vijnanesvara 
in discounting the four bases (No. 4, sthdmi). There is, however, 
still another circumstance that influenced Gangadhar's emended 
recension ; namely, his acquaintance with Susruta's statement 
on the skeleton. From the traditional recension of that state- 
ment (§ 27), he obtained his count of four heels, as well as of 
the sacral and anal bones. 

3. The combined result of the two modifying influences was 
the augmentation of Gangadhar's list by twelve bones. And 
it was to counterbalance this excess that Gangadhar reduced 
the back-bones by ten, and the breast-bones by two ; as thus : 

Grand total of the Non-medical Version (§ 20, col. 
Add, Two extra heels in No. .6 . 

Four wrist-bones in No. 7 a 

One eyiivA jatru in No. 20. 

Three extra bones in No. 23 a 

One sacral bone in No. 18 a 

One anal bone in No. 18 6 



— 12 

Total .... 



Ten back-bones in No. 18 c. 


. 10 

Two breast-bones in No. 27 . 



— 12 



It seems hardly necessary to point out, and it will be shown 
in the Third Section, that all this manipulation of the numbers 
of the list is performed without any reference to, and has no 
warrant in, the actual state of the skeletal structure. 

4. Regarding the influence of the statement of Susruta on 
the recension of Gangadhar, another indication of it may be 

E 2 


noted in the latter's employment of the terms kilrca, cluster 
(§ 18, footnote), and kurpara, elbow-pan (No. 11). Both terms 
are peculiar to the system of Susruta (§§ 27, 28). The genuine 
recension of the Non-medical Version does not use the term 
hurca at all, and instead of kurpara it uses the term kapola 
(No. 11 in § 16). The reason, no doubt, why Gangadhar 
preferred the Susrutiyan term kurpara was that he saw that 
the term kapola was misleading. It properly signifies the 
cheek, and is here out of place, because the cheeks are enumerated 
afterwards under the name fjawla (No. 2Za). The fact is (§ 21, 
cl. 3) that kapola. is an ancient false reading for kapdla, a pan, 
which signifies the pan-Kke olecranon process of the elbow (§ 53), 
and which is used in the Medical Versions of Charaka (§ 4) and 
Bheda (§ 12) in the slightly modified form of kapdlikd^ a small 

\ 20. Tlie Commentaries on the Non-medical Version 

1. The commentaries on the Non-medical Version contained 
in the Law-book of Yajnavalkya throw not a little light on the 
subject of the defects and peculiarities of that Version. The 
subjoined table exhibits a conspectus of their theories of inter- 
pretation. Columns I to IV refer to the Law-book itself, and 
columns V to VIII to the commentaries of Apararka (V), 
Vijnanesvara (Mitakshara, VI), ^ulapani (VII), Mitramisra 
(VIII). Column III gives the number of bones of each item 
of the list, and column IV the totals of the bones named in 
each verse. For the original texts and translations of the 
commentaries, see §§ 79-82. 

^ As a fact, the India Office MS., No. 540, of the Vimu Smrti, reads 
kapala ; see § 84. 





Items of List. 


















2 80 










1. Teeth and sockets 

2. Nails (nakha) 

3. Long bones (ialdkd) 

4. Bases (sthdna) 

5. Phalanges (aiiguli) 

6. Heels (pdrsni) 

7. Ankle-bones (gulpha) 

8. Forearms (aratni) 

9. Legs (jangha) 

10. Knee-caps (jdnu) 

11. Elbow-pans (kapola) 

12. Thighs {uru-2)halaka) 

13. Shoulder-blades 

14. Collar-bones (aksa) 

15. Fai'dtal cavities (tdhlsaka) 

1 6. Hip-blades (ironi-phalaJca) 

17. Pubes (bhaga) 

18. Back-bones (prstha) 

19. Neck-bones (grlvd) 

20. Windpipe (jatru) 

21. Chin (hanu) 

22. Basal tie-bones 

23 a. Bones of brows (laldta) 
„ eyes (aksi) 
„ cheeks (ganda) 

23 b. Nasal bone (ndsd) 

24. Ribs, &c. (2)drSvaka) 

25. Temporal bones {iankha) 

26. Cranial pan-shaped 

27. Breast-bones (uras) 

Grand totals 






2 81 








2 81 
























2 81 












2. It will be noticed at once that the totals of Apararka 
(col. V) differ from those of the three other commentators 
(cols. VI, VII, VIII). The latter agree among themselves ; and 
a comparison of their comments shows that the views of Vijna- 
nesvara, who is the oldest among them, have been simply 
adopted by the two others. Apararka, who was a near con- 
temporary of Vijnanesvara, holds an independent view, which 
differs in respect of four of the six totals ; viz. the first, third, 
fourth, and fifth. These differences will now be considered 

3. In verse 85, Vijnanesvara (in his commentary called 
Mitdhhard) makes the total of the bones to be 104. He arrives 
at this total by discounting the bases [sthdna). According to 
him the terms sthdna (base) and saldkd (long bone) refer to the 
same organ (hand or foot, as the case may be), but describing it 
from two different points of view : saldkd describes the two hands 
and feet with reference to the total number of their individual 
bones, which is twenty, while sthdna describes them with regard 
to the four sets into which those twenty bones are divided. 
Of course, in a mere enumeration of the bones, both terms are 
not required ; and as we are not primarily concerned with any 
sets they may form among themselves, but only with their 
number as individual bones, the four sthdna (or sets of saldkd) 
are rejected from the count. On the other hand, according to 
Apararka, the two terms saldkd and sthdna refer to quite different 
organs, saldkd denoting the long bones (metacarpal and meta- 
tarsal), and sthdna, the bases of the long bones, that is, the carpus 
and tarsus, or what Susruta calls kiirca or cluster of small bones. 
The reason — a textual one — that led the two commentators to 
this difference of interpretation, will be found fully explained in 
an Exegetical Note, § 83. Here it is only necessary to point out 
that Apararka is correct; for the interpretation of Vijnanesvara 
entirely omits from the count two such important organs as 
the carpus and tarsus. The total of the bones in verse 85, 
therefore, must be 108, as stated by Apararka. 

4. In verse 87, Vijnanesvara makes the total of the bones 
to be fourteen, while Apararka counts only twelve. The differ- 
ence arises from Apararka's taking aksa-tdlusaka (Nos. 14, 15) 


to be but a single term, and to denote a single bone, that is, 
a bone situated, as he supposes, ' on the edge of the eye ' 
{netm-prdnta)^ there being, of course, two such bones, one on 
the edge of either eye.^ On the other hand, Vijnanesvara 
takes that term to be double, and to denote two distinct bones ; 
namely, aha to signify ' the bone between the eye and the ear ' 
{karna-netrayorfmadhye)^ and tdlusaka to denote the hard palate 
(hdkuda). In this case, so far as the counting is concerned, 
Vijnanesvara, no doubt, is correct. Apararka was probably led 
to his fanciful interpretation of the single term by the necessity 
of working out the required grand total of 360 bones. But 
with regard to the meaning of the term akm.^ both of them 
are wrong. That term is merely a shorter form of the word 
aksaka, and denotes the collar-bone (§ 55).^ 

5. In verse 88, Vijnanesvara makes the total of the bones 
to be sixty-four, while Apararka counts sixty-three. The differ- 
ence arises from the fact that Vijnanesvara counts two jatru 
(No. 20), while Apararka counts but one. In this case Apararka 
again is right, for Vijnanesvara commits the mistake of taking 

jatru to mean collar-bone. The subject will be fully discussed 
in the Third Section (§ 62) ; here it must suffice to point out 
that Vijnanesvara's interpretation is in the teeth of the text 
which he interprets, and which distinctly says that there is but 
one jatru. 

6. In verse 89, Vijnanesvara makes the bones amount to 
eighty-one, while Apararka counts eighty. The difference arises 
from their counting the bones referred to in the complex term 
laldt-dksi-ganda^ brow-eye-cheek (No. 23 a), in two different ways. 
Apararka takes the term to denote one brow, two eyes, and two 
cheeks, or altogether five bones, while Vijnanesvara counts 
two brows, two eyes, and two cheeks, or a total of six bones. 
In this case, both are wrong. In the text, that complex term 

^ He evidently takes aksa to be synonymous with aksi, eye. 

^ In fact, Vijnanesvara's aksa is identical with Apararka's aksa- 

^ Both Professors Stenzler and Jolly have been misled by the 
commentaries in their translations ' Sclafen ' {Yajnavalkya s Gesetzbuch, 
p. 98) and 'lower part of the temples' {Sacred Books of the East, 
vol. vii, p. 284); so also Maudlik, p. 253, has 'temples'. 


is not qualified by any numeral — a circumstance which indicates 
that but one bone is reckoned for each of the three items. ^ 
Hence there are no more than three bones in No. 23 a, and the 
total of the bones included in verse 89 is really seventy-eight. 
That this is the true interpretation of the text is proved by the 
fact that it works out the correct grand total 360, as shown 
in col. IV (also § 16). 

§ 21. Continuation 

1. Regarding the principal defect of the Non-medical Ver- 
sion — its total neglect of the bones of the arms and wrists — 
it is instructive to note the shifts to which the commentators 
are put to explain it. 

2. As to the omission of all mention of the wrist-bones, the 
commentators do not seem to have realized it at all, for none 
of them makes any reference to it. Gangadhar, as we have 
seen (§ 19), did realize it ; and he, therefore, introduced the 
wrist-bones {jnanika) in his reconstruction of the Non-medical 
Version. But the early commentators noticed only the omission 
of the arms — a circumstance, indeed, which cannot surprise us, 
seeing that the arms form such a conspicuous part of the body. 
But the way in which they deal with the omission is character- 
istic. The only solution of the difficulty which they are able 
to suggest, consistently with their respect for the integrity of 
their sacred text, is to declare that the arms [bdhit) are virtually 
included in the term forearm {arafni, No. 8). Thus Vijnanesvara 
says (see § 80), 'the bones of the arms, being implied in the 
term forearm, number four' ; and his explanation is unquestion- 
ingly adopted by the later commentators, Sulapani and Mitra- 

^ That is to say, ekaikam, ' one in each,' is to be understood with 
the clause laldt-dksi-gande, but not dve dve, ' two in each,' as Vijna- 
nesvara understands. His exToneous interpretation has gained such 
credence that it has actually modified the text of the list in the 
Institutes of Vishnu (§ 22), and that it has been uuquestioningly 
accepted by the translators of the two legal ti'eatises : Professor 
Stenzler, p. 98, 'an deren Wurzel zwei ; ebenso an Stirne, Augen, 
Wangen,' and Professor Jolly {Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. 284), 
' there are two (bones) to the forehead, (two) to the eyes, and (two) to 
the cheeks.' 


misra (§§ 81, 82).^ The total in appropriateness of such an in- 
terpretation is obvious ; for the entire arm (or upper extremity) 
consists of three bones, two in the forearm and one in the arm. 
The total, according-ly, of the bones of the two upper extremities 
amounts to six. But Vijnanesvara and his followers do not 
seem to have been aware of the fact that the forearm contained 
two bones. This is pretty clear from their comments (see 
§§ 80-82). Their idea was that each extremity consisted of 
two bones, arm and forearm, and similarly leg* and thigh, each 
containing- a single bone. Anyhow, Apararka, while giving 
the same explanation (§ 79), candidly says, 'though the term 
forearm [aratni) does not really include the arm {hdliu), yet here, 
for the sake of securing the number four of the bones, it is 
so employed ' (i. e. as inclusive of the arm). This shift of 
interpretation necessarily led to another incongruity. If the 
term forearm (arafni) included the arm (bd/iu), by parity of 
reason the term leg [jwiigha) must include the thigh {uni). Ks, 
a matter of fact the commentators do draw that conclusion. 
Thus Apararka expressly says (§ 79), ' similarly the word leg 
[jangJia) here signifies the w^hole lower extremity, and hence 
the bones of the two legs number four.' But he fails to notice 
that the bones of the thighs are expressly and separately 
enumerated in verse 87, where accordingly he counts them 
a second time. 

3. The true explanation of the difficulty, of course, must be 
of a very different kind ; and it is one which the text of the 
Non-medical Version itself suggests with some degree of 
probability. The place where the mention of the bones of the 
arms and wrist-bones would come in is verse 87. Now the 
wording of that verse is marked by some peculiarities. It runs 
as follows : 

dve dvejd7in-kapol-oru2^IiaIak-dihsa-sawiiclbhc(i'e I 
aksa-tdlusake sroniphalake ca vinirdiset II 

Literally this means : ' two (bones) each in the knees, cheeks, 
thigh-blades, and in what springs from the shoulder ; also, (as) one 

^ Also Nanda Pandita adopts it in his commentary on the Vimu 
Smrti (§ 85). 


should declare, in the collav-bones, palatal cavities, and hip- 
blades.' Here the item ' cheeks ' is utterly out of place, occuning 
as it does between the knees and thig-hs. To any one conversant 
with the skeletal structure it must be obvious that words 
meaning" elbow and arm should have their place there ; and 
there can be no doubt whatever that kcqiola is simply an ancient 
misreading for kajjdla, elbow-pan.^ Gangadhar recognized 
the truth, and hence in his reconstruction of the Non-medical 
Version (§ 19, cl. 4) he substituted the correct synonym kurpara. 
There is another ancient misreading in the term uru-jJialaka, 
thigh-blade ; for phalaka denotes a broad, flat bone, and is quite 
inappropriate as a descriptive of the thigh-bone. The true 
reading, of course, must be nalaka, which signifies a cylindrical, 
hollow bone, and which occurs, in this connexion, in the Medical 
Versions of Charaka and Bheda (§§ 4, 12). Very striking is 
the use of the otiose phrase ' one should declare ' in the midst of 
a statement packed as concisely as possible with the details of a 
long enumeration. It clearly suggests that it is inserted as mere 
padding to fill up an awkward lacuna. Yajnavalkya, or whoever 
was the author of the Non-medical Version, must have had 
a defective MS. copy of the Medical Version to work with. 
There were false readings in it i^kapola, uru-phalaka) as well 
as lacunae (arms and wrist-bones). As he was unable to supply 
the lacunae, he had recourse to padding. The use of the 
curious term amsa-samudhhava, springing from the shoulder, to 
denote the shoulder-blade, is perhaps due to the same need of 
padding. For though it is not a false descriptive, it is a need- 
lessly long substitute for the shorter terms amsa-ja or athsa- 
jpludaka. In addition to padding, however, the author had also 
to make good the shortage of six bones caused by the omission of 
the arms and wrist-bones. This he did, as shown in § 17 (p. 48), 
by augmenting the number of the breast-bones and facial bones 
by three bones each, or a total of six bones. We have here 
a case of ill-instructed ' editing ' of a medical text similar to 

^ Accordingly, the translation ' Backen ' by Professor Stenzler (p. 98) 
and ' cheek ' by Professor Jolly {Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. 284) 
should be replaced by ' Elbogenknochen ', and ' funny-bone ' or ' crazy- 
bone ' respectively. 


that from which the texts of Charaka and Susruta suffered 
recently at the hands of Gang-adhar (§§ 9, 35), and anciently 
at the hands of Vagbhata I (§ 40). 

§ 22. The Non-medical Version of the Institutes of 


1. The essential identity of the Non-medical Version, as it 
is found in the Institutes of Vishnu, with the same Version as 
it occurs in the Law-book of Yajnavalkya, is shown by the fact 
that it also omits all mention of the arms and wrist-bones, and 
that it also corrects the resulting shortag-e of six bones by a 
corresponding" increase in the number of bones of the breast 
and face, as explained in § 17 (p. 48). 

2. On the other hand, there are significant points of differ- 
ence. These will be enumerated with reference to the table 
given in § 20. 

(a) The list in the Institutes omits No. 4, bases (sfJidna), 

(b) In No. 20 it counts two Jafnc or collar-bones. 

(c) In No. 23 a it counts two bones for each of the three 
items : brows, eyes, cheeks ; that is a total of six bones. 

Referring to column VI of that table, it will be seen that 
these three points of difference exactly reflect the interpretation 
which Vijnanesvara, in his Mitaksharii Commentary, places on 
the statements of the Law-book of Yajnavalkya. According to 
him, the item ' bases ' [sthdna) is practically superfluous ; accord- 
ingly the Institutes of Vishnu omits that item altogether. 
Again, Vijnanesvara takes j?a^n^ to mean collar-bone, and counts 
two of them, in spite of the plain statement of the text that 
there is only one jatru : the Institutes, as interpreted by Nanda 
Pandita, follows suit. Once more Vijnanesvara counts two 
brows, two eyes, and two cheeks : the Institutes does the same, 
and in fact actually introduces the number two [dve) into the text 
(p. 56, footnote). The conclusion from this remarkable agreement 
is unavoidable that whoever drew up the list as we find it in the 
Institutes, did so on the basis of Vijnancsvara's interpretation, 
and that accordingly the introduction of that list in the Institutes 


cannot be placed earlier than the date of Vijnanesvara, that is 
after 1100 a.d. (§ 14). Seeing- that the Institutes of Vishnu 
appears to be often quoted in the Mitakshara,^ it does not seem 
impossible that the appearance of the list in the Institutes is 
due to Vijnanesvara himself. 

3. In connexion with the late date of the introduction of the 
Non-medical Version into the Institutes of Vishnu, it is instructive 
to note the attempts that have been made, in some manuscripts 
of that work, to amend the text so as to remedy the great defect 
of the omission of the arms. As to the omission of the wrist- 
bones it appears never to have been realized by any one, copyist 
or commentator. Among" the seventeen MSS. enumerated in 
§ 14, there are four, Nos. 4, 12, 13, 17 (see § 84), which offer 
a curiously emended text. They omit the clause referring to the 
thighs and shoulder-blades {wo- msai/oJi , No. 66 in Professor 
Jolly's edition, and Nos. 12, 13 in the table in § 20), and instead 
of the clause referring to the long bones i^iKini-pdda-saldkmica ^ 
No. 59 in the edition, and No. 3 in the table) they substitute 
the clause : ' two arms, two forearms, two thighs ' {(Ive IdJm, dve 
prahdJm^ um-dvaycmi). But this emendation is no real improve- 
ment; for though it introduces the arms (bdhi), and retains the 
thighs [uru), it eliminates the shoulder-blades [amsa), and 
reduplicates the forearms {^prahdlni) which had already been 
mentioned under the term aratni (No. 63 in the edition, and No. 8 
in the table).^ But though the emendation is not a success, it 
at all events proves that the text of the Institutes, so far as the 
list of the bones is concerned, was not considered too sacred 
to be altered. In the case of the Law-book of Yajnavalkya, as 
shown in § 21, though the commentators recognized the omission 

^ See Professor Jolly's Introduction, p. xxxii, in Sacred Books of the 
East, vol. vii. It would be interesting to examine (what I have not 
been able to do) all early quotations of the list from the Institutes. 
If no quotation earlier than Nanda Pandita can be found, the intro- 
duction of the list into the Institutes may be due to that commentator 
who adopts all the views of Vijnanesvara. 

^ With regard to the lepetition of the forearms, it may be noted 
that it only occurs in two MSS., viz. Nos. 12 and 17. In the critical 
footnotes in the Bibliotheca Indica edition, p. 197, the reading in 
question, which occurs in No. 12 (Professor Jolly's MS. V), is not 


of the arms, they were unwilling to meddle with the time- 
honoured text, and accordingly had recourse to shifts of inter- 
pretation. The fact that there was no reluctance to meddle 
with the text of the Institutes of Vishnu, would seem to show 
that in that work the list enjoyed no right of inviolability, but 
was known to be of recent introduction. 

4. It only remains to note two lesser points of difference and 
of agreement between the Institutes of Vishnu and the Law-book 
of Yajnavalkya. The two points of difference are the following : 

{a) In No. 1 the Institutes substitutes the curious term 
suksma, or minute {scl. bone), for sthdkt, to denote the sockets of 
the teeth. 

{b) It places No. 27, breast-bones (uras), not at the very end 
of the list, but between No. 24, ribs, and No. 25, temples — 
a location which is no less incongruous (see § 17). 

The two points of agreement are the following : 

(«) In No. 23 b the Institutes of Vishnu also uses the curious 
term ghanddhikd, or ^^«««-bone, to denote the nose. 

(V) It also places the phalanges (No. 5) after the long bones 
(No. 3), whereas in the Medical Version of Charaka and Bheda 
the phalanges occupy their natural and logical position in 
advance of the long bones (§§ 4, 12). 

^ 23. The Non-medical Version in the ' Anatomy ' 

1. It remains to notice a work which also contains a ver- 
sion of Atreya's system of the skeleton. Into the preceding 
discussion it has not been introduced, because its author and 
age are at present unknown. Nevertheless its testimony ^ on 
some of the points which have been discussed is sufficiently 
striking to deserve to be taken into consideration. Its name 
is simply Sdrira, or ' Anatomy ', and so far as I know, it is not 
otherwise known. It is contained in the same MS. volume 
No. M. a. I. 483 (Cat. No. 167) of the Tiibingen University 
Library which contains also the ' Chapter on Anatomy ' of the 
Vishnu Dharmottara Purana, already mentioned in § 14.^ Its 

^ This curiously corroborative testimony was discovered by me only 
after the preceding joaragraphs liad been written. 

" The MSS. of both works are written by the same ' hand ' of 


versified contents are compiled from many different sources, 
some of which are quoted by name.^ Its statement on the 
skeleton, in particular, is taken from the Law-book of Yajna- 
valkya, and accordingly g-ives the Non-medical Version. Though 
in this case the source is not named, there can be no hesitation as 
to its identity, seeing that in most of the verses there is a literal 
agreement (see § 87). But the interesting point is that the 
agreement fails mainly in verse 87, where, as shown in § 21, the 
great defect of the Non- medical Version comes in. This verse 
is entirely rewritten in the ' Anatomy ', so as to admit the 
insertion of the two arms and four wrist-bones. 

2. The statement on the skeleton in the ' Anatomy ' runs as 
follows (Original Text and literal translation in § 87) : 

'The body has six parts {anga), and of bones it has three 
hundred and sixty ; namely, 

[Verse 85] 1. 64 teeth (danta) with their sockets {iduka). 

2. 20 nails {nakJia). 

3. 20 long bones {mldkd). 

4. 4 bases {stJuhia) of the long bones. 
[Verse 86] 5. 60 phalanges {anguli). 

6. 2 heels (pdrmi). 

7. 4 ankle-bones (gulpka). 

8. 4 bones of the forearms {arafni). 

9. 4 bones of the legs {jaiigha). 
[Verse 87] 10. 2 collar-bones {amsu). 

11. 2 shoulder-blades {amsa-phalaka). 

a Bengali writer, and their leaves are numbered consecutively on 
the left-hand reverse margin. It was probably for this reason that 
in the Catalogue they are described as being a single work called Visnu- 
dharmottara. But that they are I'eally two separate works is proved 
by the following facts: (1) There is an alternative numbering of the 
folios on their right-hand reverse margins, which is separate for either of 
the two works ; (2) The end of the first work is indicated on the obverse 
of the fifth folio (or the eighth of the total consecutive count) by the 
colophon iti Visnudharmottar-oTctam Sdriram sama/ptam, i. e. here 
ends the ' Anatomy' declared in the Vishnudharmottara ; while the end 
of the second work is on the obverse of the thirteenth folio (twentieth 
of the total) as iti Sariram samdptam, i.e. here ends the 'Anatomy'; 
(3) The subject of the two works is identical, and to a large extent 
they go over the same ground ; witness, e.g. the occurrence of the list 
of bones in both works. 

^ e.g. Charaka, Yoga-mvMavall, Kauldvali Nirnaga, Lauha-jpradlpa. 


12. 4 wrist-bones (luuta-mamka). 

13. 2 hollow bones {iialaka) of the arms {bdhn). 

14. 2 hollow bones [nalaka) of the thig-hs {uru). 

15. 2 palates {tdlu). 

16. 2 eyes (uetra). 

17. 2 knee-caps (Jctnu). 

18. 2 elbow-pans (jdmi-kapdlikd). 

19. 2 hip-blades (sroni-p/falaka). 

20. 2 basal tie-bones of the (lower) jaw {hanu-miila 

[Verse 88] 21. 1 pubic bone {hhaga). 

22. 45 back-bones [prstha). 

23. 10 neck-bones {gnvd). 

24. 1 windpipe {jatnc). 

25. 1 (lower) jaw [Iianu), or chin. 

[Verse 89] 26. 1 facial bone constituting nose, cheeks, and 

brows {ndsa-f/anfjakuta-laldtaka muk/ie). 
27. 72 ribs [pdrsvaka) with their sockets {kaulaka) 
and tubercles {arhnda). 

[Verse 90] 28. 2 temporal bones {sankTiaka). 

29. 4 cranial pan-shaped bones {m'aJi-kapdla), 

30. 17 breast-bones (icras). 

These make up the skeleton of man.' 

3. Comparing the foregoing statement with what has been 
explained in §§17 and 21 regarding the construction of the 
Non-medical Version in the Law-book of Yajnavalkya, the 
following points may be observed : 

(a) The author of the ' Anatomy ' noticed the omission of the 
arms and wrist-bones, and the consequent padding of verse 87 
with otiose elements. Hence he entirely rewrote that verse, 
eliminating all padding, and thus making room for the inclusion 
of the four wnst-bones (No. 12) and two arms (No. 13). 

[I) He further noticed the difference in the way of counting 
the facial bones ; viz. that Charaka counted a single bone for 
the complex of nose, cheeks, and brows, while the Non-medical 
Version counted four bones, one for each of the four items : nose, 
cheeks, brows, and eyes. Accordingly^ he restored Charaka's 
count (No, 26), which process involved the exclusion of the eyes. 

{c) On the other hand, probably accepting the authority of 
the system of Susruta as against that of Charaka, he retained 

^ Probably on the authority of Chakrapanidatta's Commentary (§ 11). 


the eyes, but assigned to them a special place in No. 16, in the 
reconstructed verse 87. 

{d) For the same reason, he appears also to have retained the 
count of seventeen breast-bones (No. 30). 

The result of all this mani];)ulation of the statements of the 
Non-medical Version was that there were now five bones in 
excess of the required total 360. Hence 

[e) He reduced the number of neck-bones by five, counting 
ten (No. 23) against Charaka's fifteen (No. 23 in § 4). 

4. The whole operation, as above explained, may be exhibited 

Grand total of the Non-medical Version 
Add, Two arms (No. 13). 

Four wrist-bones (No. 12) . 

Two eyes (No. 16) . 

— 8 


Deduct, Three facial bones (No. 26) . 
Five neck-bones (No. 23) 

— 8 

Balance ...... 360 

The objection to this operation is twofold. First, the inclusion 
of the two eyes is not warranted by the Medical Version of 
either Charaka or Bheda. The eyes, in fact, form no item of 
the skeletal structure in the system of Atreya, but belong to 
the system of Susruta (§ 30). Secondly, the reduction in the 
number of neck-bones is not warranted by any true view of 
the skeletal system. The correct procedure for the author 
of the ' Anatomy ' would have been to restore Charaka's count 
of the breast-bones, that is, to count fourteen breast-bones (No. 24 
in § 4) instead of seventeen. This reduction of three bones in 
the breast, together with the exclusion of the two eyes, would 
have given him the five bones which he required to redress the 
excess resulting from his operation. 

5. On the other hand a distinct improvement made by the 
author of the 'Anatomy' is his correction of the two ancient 
false readings kapola and uru-phalaka (Nos. 11 and 12 in § 16, 


and see § 21, cl. 3), for which he substitutes the true readings 
uru-nalaka and kapdUkd. 

^24. Relation of the Medical Version to the Non-medical 

1. We are now in possession of all the evidence to enable 
us to sum up the case concerning the relation of the two Medical 
Versions (§§ 4, 12) to the Non-medical. 

2. When the needful corrections are made in the Non-medical 
Version, which have been indicated in §§ 17-23, that is, when 
the omitted six bones of the arms and wrists are inserted, and 
on the other hand, the alterations, made for the purpose of 
correcting those omissions, are cancelled, the Non-medical Version 
reveals itself in all essentials to be exactly the same as the 
Medical Version of Charaka in the restored form given in § 7. 

3. But in two striking points of terminology, the Non-medical 
Version differs from the Medical Version, whether of Charaka or of 
Bheda. These are : first, the use of the term stlidla (No. 1 in § 16) 
or sukpna (§ 22, cl. 4 a) to signify the sockets of the teeth, where 
the two Medical Versions have the term ulnkhala. Secondly, 
its use of the term gliandstJdkd to denote the nose, which is not 
found in the two Medical Versions. The latter term has been 
a puzzle to all commentators. They simply refer to it as ' the 
so-called ghana bone ' {ghana-samjnamfasfki), but do not attempt 
to explain it. But seeing that there exists a Sanskrit word 
ghrdna, or Prakrit ghdna, meaning ' smelling ' or ' nose ', it may 
be suggested that ghanddhikd, repi'esents the Sanskrit word 
gkrdn-dsthikd, lit. smelling bone, which in the ordinary Prakrit 
would take the form glidnattkikd, but in the North- Western 
Prakrit, or the well-known Vernacular Sanskrit of those parts, 
w^hich were the home of the school of Atreya, might very well 
have been gliandsthikd. 

4. Also, in a formal point of arrangement, the Non-medical 
Version differs from the two Medical Versions. In the former 
the phalanges are placed after the long bones (§ 22, cl. 4 V). In 
the Medical Versions of Charaka (§ 4) and Bheda (§ 12), on the 
other hand, they precede the long bones. The latter arrange- 
ment, it is hardly necessary to say, observes the natural and 
logical order of the bones. 



5. These differences, comparatively trifling as they are, seem 
to warrant the inference that the Non-medical Version is based 
neither on the Compendium of Charaka (i.e. ultimately of 
Agnivesa) nor on that of Bheda, but that, as suggested in § 1 (p. 4), 
it represents a third Medical Version which may have stood in 
the Compendium of another of the six pupils of Atreya, whose 
identity at present is unknown. 

6. A coincidence may be worth noting. In the existing MS. 
of the Bheda Samhitd the clause referring to the arms is missing 
(§ 13, cl. 1). Exactly the same omission is found in the Non- 
medical Version (§ 17, cl. 2 c). The author of that version, as 
has been suggested in § 21 (p. 58), must have had a defective 
MS. of the Medical Version to work with. The actual existence 
of such defective manuscripts is curiously corroborated by the 
MS. of the Bheda Samhitd. 

^ 25. General Conclusions 

The principal results of the investigation in the preceding 
paragraphs may now be summarized as follows : 

1. In the Medical and Non-medical Versions we possess three 
independent presentments of the doctrine of Atreya concerning 
the skeleton, transmitted, probably, by three members of his 
school. To two of these members, Agnivesa and Bheda, the 
two Medical Versions professedly are due. Agnivesa's Version 
we possess only as contained in the Compendium of Charaka, 
but that Charaka introduced no material change into it^ is 
proved by its close agreement with the Version of Bheda. The 
name of the third member, on whose presentment of Atreya's 
system the Non-medical Version probably is based, is not known, 
neither its reputed author Yajnavalkya, nor any of the old 
commentators recording any tradition on the subject. 

2. The text of the statement on the skeleton has not been 
preserved in a quite perfect condition in any of the three 
Versions. Several of the corruptions now found in them, e. g. 
the misplacement of No. 19, palatal cavities {tdlmaka in §§ 4, 
12, or No. 15 in § 16), are of a very ancient date, going back 
at least to the fourth century a. d., seeing that they appear in 


the Law-book of Yajnavalkj'^a which belongs to that century 
(§ 14). Fortunately (as may be seen by comparing- § 4 with 
§ 7), with the exception of one, none of .these corruptions is of 
any great importance. Being- clerical errors of misplacement or 
duplication they merely affect the external form of the statement. 
The single exception which affects the substance of the state- 
ment is the error concerning the number of the wrist-bones 
{manika), which is said to be two instead of four (No. 9 in §§ 4, 
12). That there existed in the medical manuscripts, in this 
particular place, a more or less serious corruption of the text 
from a very early date, is shown by the fact that in the fourth 
century a.d. Yajnavalkya, in preparing his Law-book, apparently 
was unable to make anything of the medical text which was 
available to him, and thus came to omit from his Non-medical 
Version all mention of the wrist-bones. Nevertheless, as will be 
shown in § 52, with a little attention to the actual structure of 
the skeleton, it is easy enough to detect and remedy the error. 
As has been shown in § 23 (p. 63), the error was detected and 
corrected by the unknown author of the ' Anatomy ' ; and it is 
one of the merits of Gangadhar's edition of the Compendium of 
Charaka, that in his otherwise much misconceived reconstruction 
of Charaka's Medical Version (§ 8), he made the number of the 
wrist-bones to be foui'.^ 

Note. — It may be useful briefly to put together the various in- 
dications which go to prove that, in the osteological summary of 
Chai-aka, the true number of the wrist-bones was not two but four: 

(1) As shown in paragraph 6, the exclusion of the two aiiisa 
as an otiose repetition necessitates a corresponding increase in 
the number of wrist-bones. 

(2) As shown in § 52, the system of Charaka, consistently 
construed, requires the count of four wrist-bones. 

(3) As shown in § 17, that count is a necessary factor of a 
correct appreciation of the confusion in the Non-medical Version. 

(4) As shown in §§ 19 and 23, both Gangadhar and the anony- 
mous author of the ' Anatomy ', in their attempted reconstructions, 

' Possibly Gangadhar may have been acquainted with the anonymous 
' Anatomy '. See also the reraai-ks in § 78 on Gangadhar's doctrine 
of four wrist-bones, in his reconstruction of the Non-medical Version. 

F 2 


find it necessaiy to admit that count ; and in fact, without it no 
intellig-ent and consistent reconstruction appears to be possible. 

Regarding" the exchision of the item a/hsa, as an otiose duplica- 
tion, it is supported by the following circumstances : 

(1) The actual occurrence of the similar duplication o?Jdnu{^6). 

(2) The actual omission, in the Non-medical Version, of both 
reduplicated words a7hsa and Jchm (§§ 16, 17). 

(3) The exclusion of a/hsa in the attempted reconstruction of 
Gangadhar (§ 9, p. 30). 

(4) The mention of only two bones in the shoulder, in the 
osteological system of the Atharva Veda (§ 43, cl. 6). 

B. The System of Susruta 
^26. SuSrutas Statement and its Recensions 

1. Susruta's system of the bones of the human body is 
stated in the beginning of the fifth chapter of the third or 
Anatomical Section (Sdrlra Sthdna) of his Compendium. 

2. There exist two recensions of this statement. One is 
printed in Jivananda's edition of the Compendium, p. 331, 
paragraj)hs 15 and 16 (Calcutta, 1889), as well as in all other 
editions with which I am acquainted ; e. g. in the editions of 
Madhusudana Gupta, p. 339 (Calcutta, 1834), of Prabhuram 
Jivanaram, p. 481, paragraphs 18-21 (Bombay, 1901), Virasvami 
(Madras). The other occurs in Gangadbar's Commentary (called 
JaliM-kalpatarv) on the Compendium of Charaka, p. 188, lines 
5-14 (Berhampore, 1879, see § 3). These two recensions differ 
so widely from each other that it becomes necessary once again 
to inquire into their respective authorization. 

3. The recension which is found in Jivananda's and all other 
prints, and which, in the sequel, will be refeiTed to as the 
Traditional Recension, has in its favour not only all available 
manuscripts, but also all ancient commentaries on the Compen- 
dium of Susruta, as well as all such older medical works as adopt 
Susruta's system of the skeleton. Or shortly, the Traditional 
Recension is supported by the whole body of existing witnesses. 

4. As regards manuscripts, I have been able to examine the 


following eleven copies, in all of which the existence of the 
Traditional Recension has been verified: 

1. The Alwar Palace Library MS., No. 1703.^ 

2. The Benares College MS., No. 23 (old No. 64), fols. 18, 19.^ 

3. The Deccan College MS., No. 406, of 1895-8, fols. 37 h, 

38 ; dated Sam vat 1704 = a. d. 1647. 

4. The Deccan College MS., No. 948, of 1884-7, fol. 14 ; 


5. The Deccan College MS., No. 949, of 1884-7, fols. 53 h, 

54, 55 a, with Dallana's Commentary ; undated. 

6. The Deccan College MS., No. 956, of 1891-5, fol. 15 ; 


7. The Deccan College MS., No. 224, of 1882-3, fols. 23, 

24 a ; dated Samvat 1640 = a. d. 1583.^ 

8. The Bodleian MS. (Hultzsch), No. 349, fol. 31, in ^arada 

characters, on paper, undated ; a Kashmir MS. 

9. The Bodleian MS., No. 739 (Wilson 290), fol. 19. 

10. The India Office MS., No. 72 h (Cat. No. 2645), fol. 17 ; 

dated Samvat 1696 = a. d. 1639; contains only the 
Sdnra Sthdna. 

11. The India Office MS.,No.l842 (Cat. No. 2646), fols. 21 b, 

22 a ; undated, contains Chandrata's revision of the 
text, based on the Commentary of Jaijjata. 

It should be observed that these MSS. come from widely 
separated Indian localities, and that three of them, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 
are of a considerable age — facts which enhance the value of their 
testimony as that of independent witnesses. 

5. As to old commentaries, we have the two works, compiled 
by Gayadasa and Dallana (§ 2). Of the former, I have been 
able to consult the unique MS. preserved in the Cambridge 
University Library, Add. 2491, fols. 48 b, 49 a ; of the latter, the 
Deccan College MS., No. 949, of 1884-7, fols. 53 b, 54,55 a (see 
above, No. 4). Of the latter, there is also the edition published 
by Jivananda, Calcutta, 1891. Both commentaries are based on 
the Traditional Recension, and contain not the remotest indica- 
tion of being acquainted with the recension printed by Gangadhar. 
A number of other old commentaries are known by name, for 

' A copy of the statement on the skeleton from MS. No. 1 was most 
kindly supplied to me by Major P. T. A. Spence, British Political 
Agent ; from No. 2, by the Principal of the Benares College ; and 
from Nos. 3-7, by Professor K. B. Pathak, of the Deccan College. 


which Dr. Cordier's Recenies Becouvertes, pp. 13, 14, may be 
consulted. But no coi)ies of any of them — so far, at least, as 
the Anatomical Section {^Sdrlra Sthdna) is concerned — have as 
yet come to light. 

6. As to older medical works which explicitly adopt Susruta's 
system of the skeleton, we have the following* two (§ 2) : 

(1) The Sdrira Padmim, by Bhaskara Bhatta (c. a. d, 1000), 
a manuscript of which is in the possession of Dr. P. Cordier 
{Recentes Becouvertes. p. 30), dated Sarhvat 1735 = a. d. 1678; 
and from which a copy of the statement on the skeleton was very 
kindly supplied to me by the owner. 

(2) The Bl/ava Brukdm, by Bhava Misra, in the sixteenth 
century^ edited by Jivananda, and others. 

Both works contain independently versified versions of the 
prose statement of Susruta, made by the authors themselves, but 
based on the Traditional Recension of that statement. 

7. As regards Gangadhar's recension, I have not been able to 
discover for it any authority whatsoever. It will be shown in the 
sequel (§§ 29-33) that the Traditional Recension is obnoxious to 
several very serious difficulties ; and it is probable that the 
recension of Gangadhar (§ 35) is a reconstruction of his own to 
meet those of the difficulties which he had noticed. Though 
in some respects, his reconstruction is an improvement on the 
Traditional Recension, it cannot be accepted as satisfactory, 
because it fails to meet the most serious of the difficulties of that 

\ 27. T}ie Traditional Recension of Susruta 

1. The Traditional Recension of Susruta's statement (Original 
Text in § 88) on the human skeleton runs as follows : 

' The professors of General Medicine {d?/nrveda) speak of three 
hundred and sixty bones.' But books on surgical science 
{^mlya-tantrii) know only of three hundred. Of these there are one 
hundred and twenty in the extremities ; one hundred and seven- 
teen in the pelvic cavity, sides, back, abdomen (iidara), and 
breast ; and from the neck upwards there are sixty-three. In 
this wise the total of three hundred bones is made up. Now in 
each toe of the foot, there are three bones ; this makes altogether 

^ The refereuce here is to the doctrine of Atreya and his school, 
preserved for us in the Compendia of Charaka and Bheda (§§ 4, 12). 


fifteen. Those bones which constitute the sole, cluster, and 
ankle are ten. In the heel there is one ; in the leg there are 
two ; in the knee there is one ; so also in the thig-h. Thus there 
are thirty bones in one lower limb. The same count applies to 
the other lower limb, as well as to the two upper limbs. In the 
pelvic cavity there are five bones. Of these there are four in the 
anus, pubes, and hips ; and the fifth constitutes the triangular 
{trika) sacrum. There are thirty-six bones in one side, and as 
many in the other. In the back there are thirty; eig-ht in the 
breast ; two in what are called the collar-bones {aksaka-samj ha) ; 
nine in the neck ; four in the windpipe ; and two in the jaws. 
The teeth number thirty-two. In the nose there are three 
bones. There is one in the palate ; also one each in either cheek, 
ear, and temple ; and there are six in the cranium.' 

2. This detailed enumeration works out a total of 300 bones, 

as shown in the subjoined table : 

I. Four Extkemities. 

. 15x4 = 60 

10x4 = 40 

1. Phalanges (atiguli) 

2. Soles {tala) ^ 

3. Clusters (kurca) ' 

4. Ankle-bones (gulpha) 

5. Keels {par mi) . . . 1x4 

6. Legs {jangha) . . . 2x4 

7. Knees {jdnu) . . . 1x4 

8. Thighs lilru) . . . 1x4 

II. Trunk. 

9. Pelvic cavity (sroni) 

10. Sides {pdrSva) . . . 36 X 2 = 

1 1 . Back ( prstha) 

12. Breast {uras) 

13. CoUar-boDes {aksaka) 

III. Neck and Head. 

14. Neck (grlvd) 

15. Windpiyte {kantha-nddl) ^ 

16. Jaws (hanu) 

17. Teeth (danta) 

18. Nose (ndsd) 

19. Palate {tdlu) 

20. Cheeks (ganda) 

21. Ears (karna) 

22. Temples {^aiikha) 

23. Cranium (iiras) . 

Grand total 


= 4 

= 8 

= 4 

= 4 - 120 








' Tala, kurca, and kantha-nddl are identical with Charaka's ialdka, 
sthdna, audjatru (§ 4) respectively. 


{28. Susruta's List co^njjared with Char aha s 

Comparing Susruta's list of bones with that of Charaka the 
following- five points present themselves : 

1. The Principle of Position. Susruta divides the body into 
three parts, and explicitly enumerates the bones in accordance 
with their position in those divisions. Charaka (as representing 
Atreya) also refers to this principle, but does not explicitly apply 
it to his enumeration. In fact, if the Traditional Recension 
(§ 4) is correct, he does not strictly adhere to it (§ 5). 

2. The Principle of Homology. The osteological system of 
Susruta is strictly based on the principle of homology, according 
to which the several organs of the right and left, and of the 
upper and lower halves of the body, correspond to each other. 
This comes out clearly in the Table in § 27, where the bones 
of the four extremities are succinctly enumerated on that prin- 
ciple. On the other hand, Atreya-Charaka does not appear to 
have fully realized the homologies of the skeleton. The order in 
which he enumerates the bones of the four extremities (Nos. 8- 
15 in § 14), no doubt, indicates some degree of recognition of the 
principle of homology ; and the manner in which he arrives at 
his total number of the vertebral column is intelligible only 
on the implication of the same principle (§§ 59, 61). But in 
the latter case, it is not applied by him with the thoroughness 
of Susnita, and it fails him entirely with respect to the cranial 
and facial bones, which are treated by Susruta alone on the 
homological principle (§§ 63, 66). The clearness with which 
that principle was recognized by Susruta is shown by the 
subjoined statement (Original Text in § 96, cl, 1) in the sixth 
chapter of his Anatomical Section, which is devoted to an 
enumeration of the so-called ' vital spots ' {marmon) in the body. 

' In particular, just as there are in the leg (or lower limb) the 
three mortal spots : ankle, knee, and ischio-pubic arch,^ so there 
are in the arm (or upper limb) the three mortal spots: wrist, 
elbow {kurpard)^ and collar-bone. Just as between the hip- 
bone and the scrotum there is the ischio-pubic arch, so between 
the breast-bone and the armpit there is the clavicular arch.' 

* The vitajM, or ischio-pubic arch, is formed by the combined rami 
of the OS pubis and the ischium. See Figs. 4 and 20. 


On the other hand (see §§ 41, 47) Susruta carries his principle 
of homology to undue lengths in postulating- three joints in each 
of the phalang-es, and (at least, according- to the Traditional 
Recension ^) the existence of heels in the hand. 

3. Alteration of Terms. The list of Susruta introduces three 
new terms. These are No. 2, tala. No. 3, kurca, and No. 15, 
kantha-ndM, which take the place, respectiA^ely, of Charaka's 
terms saldkd, st/idna^ and jatrn. The identity of the organs 
indicated by these alternative terms will be discussed in the 
Third Section (§§ 48, 49, 62). A fourth new term, which does 
not occur in the list, but is mentioned in the passage just 
quoted, is kurpara, which is an alternative for Charaka's kapd- 
likd, elbow-pan (No. 13 in § 4), and for the false term kapola of 
the Non-medical Version (No. 11 in § 16 ; see § 19, p. 52). 

4. Alteration of Items. Susruta omits from his list the 
thirty-two sockets of the teeth which occur in the list of 
Charaka (No. 2 in § 4). On the other hand, he introduces the 
two ears [karna), and (as may be mentioned here in anticipation 
of § 30) also the two eyes (aksi). The omission of the sockets 
is due to Susruta's counting two jaws in the place of Charaka's 
one (lower) jaw (No. 26 in § 4). The insertion of the ears and 
eyes is due to Susruta's counting cartilaginous structures among 
the bones of the body (§ 30). The whole subject, however, of 
these alterations, as well as of others affecting the numbers of 
the bones in each item, will be discussed in full detail in the 
Third Section. 

5. Alteration respecting Structure. With regard to two 
points Susruta's views of the skeleton differ very considerably 
from those of Atreya-Charaka. These are the structure of the 
vertebral column and of the skeletal face. On both points, as 

' On this point, however, the Traditional Recension is wrong ; see 
§ 32. — A neat statement of the homologies of the four extremities 
occurs in Arunadatta's Commentary to the Astdnga Hrdaya, Sarlra 
Sthdna, ch. 3, verses 14, 15 6 (vol. ii, p. 549 in the first edition): 
' the bones of the two upper limbs are homologous to those of the two 
lower Umbs. They may be detailed as follows : The liand corresponds 
to the foot, the base of the hand to the heel, and the wrist to the 
ankle. The cluster exists alike in both. The foi'earm corresponds 
to the leg, the elbow to the knee, and the arm to the thigh.' 


will be fully explained in §§ 59, and 65, 66, the system of 
Susruta marks a distinct advance in anatomical knowledge. 

§ 29. Difficulties and Inconsistencies of the 
Traditional Recension 

1. The Traditional Recension of the statement of Susruta is 
beset with many difficulties and inconsistencies, both in respect 
of form and matter, which render it impossible to accept it as 
the genuine production of Susruta. 

2. As regards the form, there are two points which deserve 
consideration. In the first place, with reference to the bones of 
the trunk, the Traditional Recension states that they are distri- 
buted over 'the pelvic cavity, sides, back, abdomen, and breast' 
(§ 27). That this is the true reading of the Traditional Recen- 
sion is proved by the fact that the two medical works, Sdrlra 
Tadmini and Bhdva Prakdm^ which adopt the statement of 
Susruta, giving it, however, in a versified form of their own 
(§§ 26, 36), also name the abdomen {udara) in this connexion. 
The mention of the abdomen as a seat of bones may well cause 
surprise, and a suspicion that there must be some error in the 
text. The suspicion is confirmed when we find that in the 
subsequent enumeration of the bones in their several seats, the 
collar-bones {aksaka) take the place of the abdomen {udara). 
As the collar-bones form a part of the shoulder-girdle, it suggests 
itself that the Sanskrit text of the statement of Susruta, in its 
original and genuine form, must have read amsa, shoulder, 
instead of ndara, abdomen. A very probable explanation of the 
origin of the error in the Traditional Recension may be given. 
In the classification of the bones according to their shape (§ 30), 
the text of the Traditional Recension has the compound word 
jjrstk-odara (i. e. l^stha., back, and udara, abdomen). In this con- 
nexion the introduction of the term udara, abdomen, has a good 
reason. It is to indicate the position of the pubic arch (§ 60, 
cl. 2) as located in the anterior (or ventral) part of the pelvis. 
The latter organ comprises five bones (§ 27), viz. the two hip- 
blades {nitmnha), the sacrum {trika), the coccyx {giida), and the 
pubic arch [hhaga). These five bones belong to two different 
classes : the hip-blades and the sacrum (incl. coccyx) belong to 


the pan-shaped [kapdla), while the pubic arch belongs to the 
ornament-like {valai/a). Hence, in classifying them according 
to their shape, the term sroni, pelvis, indicative of their common 
locality, could not be used ; but each bone had to be indicated 
by its peculiar locality. Hence the sacrum and coccyx are 
indicated by the back {jjrstha), and the pubic arch by the ventral 
part (udara) of the pelvis. The compiler of the Traditional 
Recension, failing to understand this, introduced the term 
prsth-odara also into the enumeration of the bones according 
to their position in the body. But here the term is quite out 
of place. Foi" the common locality of the five bones is already 
defined by the term nroni, pelvic cavity, while the locality of the 
bones of the shoulder-girdle (cnhsa) is entirely ignored. It can, 
therefore, hardly be doubted that the reading j/rsf/i-odara, back 
and abdomen, of the Traditional Recension is an erroneous 
substitute for the true reading prsth-cii'ma, back and shoulder. 

3. In the second place, it will be shown in the next paragraph 
that the Traditional Recension omits all mention of the two 
shoulder-blades. These have their seat in the shoulder-girdle 
along with the collar-bones. One expects, therefore, in the 
enumeration of the 117 bones of the trunk, to find them men- 
tioned in the clause respecting the collar-bones. As a fact, 
however, the Traditional Recension, while mentioning the two 
collar-bones, omits the shoulder-blades altogether. But it is 
noteworthy that the clause in question is worded in a very 
peculiar way. The Recension says : ' two in what is called the 
collar-bone ' {dve akmka-samjne)} The expression * what is 
called ' (mmjna) is not employed in connexion with any other 
part, or bone, of the body. Yet there is nothing in the name 
ahahi, for collar-bone, that calls for the use of the phrase 
mmjha, ' what is called.' It suggests itself that that word 
samjna is a false reading, and that in all probability a word 
expressive of the missing shoulder-blades originally stood in 
its })lace. The ordinary term for shoulder-blade is amsa-phalaka ; 
but the shorter word amm-ja, literally ' shoulder-born ', or 

' Samjite is here taken as the locative singular. It might also be 
taken as the nominative dual, ' two so-called collar-bones.' The 
argument is not affected thereby. 


'issuing from the shoulder', would not be inappropriate, and 
might also be used. It is significant that the Non-medical 
Version of the system of Atreya employs a synonym of the 
latter word, atmo-mmii/lhhava, 'issuing from the shoulder,' to 
denote the shoulder-blade (see No. 13 in § 16). It will be 
shown in § 33, with respect to another point, that the 
Non-medical Version betrays marks of having been influenced 
by the system of Susruta ; and it suggests itself that the 
author of that Version was led to the choice of the term amsco- 
mmudhhava by the occurrence of the synonymous term amsa-ja 
in the statement of Susruta. It may be suggested, therefore, 
that, in the latter statement, in its original form in which 
we may suppose it to have left the hand of Susruta, the clause 
respecting the collar-bones probably ran (not (he aksaka-samjne, 
but) dve aksak-dihsoje, ' two in the collar-bones and shoulder- 
blades ' ^ ; and that the word amsaje became corrupted into 

J 30. Continuation 

1. In respect of the matter of the statement, the Traditional 
Recension labours under three great difficulties. 

In the first place, the list is incomplete. It omits two of the 
most conspicuous bones of the skeleton, namely, the shoulder- 
blades {aikm-pJialakc, No. 16 of Charaka's list in § 4). It also 
omits the two eyeballs (aksi-kosa). In omitting these two items 
Susruta's list, as it stands in the Traditional Recension, is 
inconsistent with another statement of his. Immediately 
following the list of bones in which Susruta enumerates them 
according to their position in the body, he continues with 
another list dividing the bones into five classes according to 
their shape. This class-list (Original Text in §§ 88, 89) runs 
as follows : 

'These bones are of five kinds, namely, pans (kapaJa), sharp- 
ones (nicaka), tender-ones {tarvna), ornaments [valaya), and 
reeds {nalaka). From among them the pan-shaped bones occur 
in the knees, elbows, hips, shouldei"s [aihsa), cheeks, palate, 
temples, interiliac space (i.e. sacrum), and cranium. The sharp 

^ Or alternatively, ' two collar-bones and two shoulder-blades.' 




bones are the teeth. The tender bones occur in the nose, ears, 
neck ^, and eyeballs {aksi-kosa). The ornament-shaped bones 
occm- in the hands, feet, sides, back, abdomen, and breast. The 
remainder of the bones are termed reed-shaped.' 

2. A comparison of the two lists, as given in the subjoined 
table, shows that all the items of the number-list reappear in 
the class-list with the exception of two which the latter contains 
in excess. 

Number-list (as in § 27). 
















Ankle-bones, wrist-bones 

5 ditto 







Legs, forearms 




Knees, elbows 




Thighs, arms 



9 a. 

Hip-blades, anal, sacral 



9 6. 

Pubic arch 




Sides (i. e. ribs) 
















Neck, windpipe ^ 









































3. Seeing- that the class-list is intended to distribute all the 
items of the number-list into five kinds, it is evident that 

^ The reference, of course, is to the jatru or kanthanddl, the 
windpipe in the neck ; see § 62, cl. 3. 

^ See the preceding note. The neck contains two organs, the 
neck-bones or cervical column, and the wiudpijjc. In the class-list, 
of course, the latter is intended. The former, being a portion of the 
vertebral column, counts with No. 1 1 , and belongs to the ornament- 
shaped class. The use of the term grlvd here is rather inaccurate, 
as it is usually employed to denote the cervical column. 


the number-list, in the form in which it is found in the 
Traditional Recension, cannot be correct, but that, in its original 
and genuine form, it must have contained those two additional 
items : No. 24, shoulder-blades, and No. 25, eyeballs. It is true 
that, with reference to No. 24 in the class-list, the Traditional 
Recension employs the term athsa, which, in the Compendium 
of Susruta, ordinarily denotes the collar-bone ; but from the con- 
text it is quite obvious that, in the present case, it can refer 
only to the shoulder-blades. For the bones, here called amm, are 
classed as pan-shaped {kapdla) — a description which is applicable 
only to the shoulder-blades. The collar-bones could only be 
described as reed-shaped [nalaka) ; and these bones, therefore, 
must be taken as referred to in the last class or the ' remainder ' 
of the list. In literary Sanskiit the word amsa denotes, in 
a general way, the shoulder ; in medical Sanskiit, at least of the 
Compendium of Susruta, the several parts of the shoulder have 
specialized names : amsa is the collar-bone, amm-phalaka (or 
ai'ma-Ja), the shoulder-blade ; amsa-Mfa, the acromion process, 
and amsa-pU/ta, the glenoid cavity. The author of the Traditional 
Recension would seem to have been a person, who was imperfectly 
familiar with the anatomical terminology of Susruta, and used 
the term amsa in the undefined literary sense ; or more probably 
it is a scribal error for amsa-ja or amsa-p?ialaka. For a fuller 
discussion, see §§ 55, 56. 

4. As regards the eyeballs, the class-list explicitly enumerates 
them among the ' tender ' bones. In agreement herewith, 
speaking of the structure of the eye in the Supplementary 
Section [Uttara Tantra) of his Compendium, Susruta describes 
the sclerotic coat of the eyeball as made of bone {asthi). The 
statement in question, describing the eye as seen in the sagittal 
section (Fig. 1), runs as follows : 

' The outer one of the protecting covers ^ of the pupil consists 
of a luminous fluid, and the next one of flesh. The third is 

^ Patala denotes the protecting covers of the drsti, or pupil, the 
supposed seat of vision. The composite uature (the ' tunics ', incl. 
retina, choroid) of the 4th cover does not seem to have been known 
to the early Indian anatomists ; nor the lens, which they thought to 
be a morbid accumulation of phlegm. 


made of fat, and beyond it there is one consisting- of bone.' 
(Original Text in § 96, el. 2.) 

It may be noticed also as a significant fact that the Non- 
medical Version of the system of Atreya (§ 16) includes the eye- 
balls in the list of bones of the human body. The genuine list 
of Atreya, as handed down by Charaka (§ 4) and Bheda (§ 12), 
does not count the eyes among* the bones. The author of the 
Non-medical Version of that list, therefore, must have obtained 
the eyes from some other source ; and this source cannot well 
have been any other than Susruta's statement on the skeleton. 
If so, it follows that the latter statement, at the time of the 

Fig. 1. Diagram of the Eve, in Sagittal Section. 
a—h. Optic Axis. 

1. Outer cover, Bdhya patala, of luminous fluid, Tejo-jala 

(Aqueous humour). 

2. Cover of muscle, Pisita patala (Ciliary body). 

3. Cover of fat, Medas patala (Vitreous humour). 

4. Cover of bone, Asthi patala (Sclerotica'). 

5, 6. Covers of eyelids and eyelashes, Paksma-vartma patala. 

composition of the existing* Law-book of Yajnavalkya, must have 
differed from the now existing Traditional Recension, and must 
have included the eyes in its list of bones. 

5. It is clear, then, that Susruta's list of bones of the human 
body, in its genuine form, must have contained four additional 
bones ; viz. two shoulder-blades and two eyeballs. As regards 
the shoulder-blades, it has been shown in the preceding para- 
graph that their omission, in all probability, is due to a mis- 
reading of the term samjna for ai'iisaja. As to the eyes, they 


would appear simply to have dropped out of the penultimate 
clause (§ 27) which should run : ' one each in either cheek, eye, 
ear, and temple.' 

Note. — With regard to the terms which occur in the class-list, 
nalaka means a reed, but not necessarily a hollow reed; it may 
be solid like the male bamboo. As used by the Indian 
anatomists it denotes any long bone, whether tubular or solid. 
Susruta does not specify the bones which he likens to a nalaka 
or reed, but only says that they are ' the remainder ', that is, that 
they are all those bones which do not fall into any of the other 
four classes. The process of exhaustion thus indicated shows 
that he classed as ' reed-like ' bones the following — the phalanges, 
the metacarpals and metatarsals, the bones of the forearms, legs, 
arms, and thighs, the collar-bones and the jaw-bones. The com- 
mentators Dallana (ed. Jiv., p. 576) and Gayadasa (Cambridge 
MS., Add. 2491, fol. 49 a, line 3), following a doctrine of Bhoja 
(Original Text in § 96, cl. 3), include the clusters, ankle-bones 
and wrist-bones among the ' reed-like ' bones. But seeing that 
these particular bones have not the smallest resemblance to reeds, 
their inclusion only proves the total want of experimental know- 
ledge of them on the part of Bhoja and the commentators. 

Valaya is the name of a certain kind of personal ornament, 
such as bracelets, anklets, necklets, waist-bands, &c. They are 
well seen on the figures of the Bharhut Stupa (of about the 
2nd century A. D.), called Chulakoka and Suchiloma, shown in 
Figs. 2 and 3.^ Susruta states that these valaya bones are found 
in the hands and feet, and in the sides, back, abdomen, and breast. 
Those in the hands and feet are the clusters (carpus and tarsus), 
wrist-bones (styloid processes), ankle-bones (malleoli) and heels : 
they resemble bracelets and anklets. The latter are shown in 
Fig. 2. The other bones indicated by him are the ribs, the 
bones of the vertebral column, also the costal cartilages and 
sternum, all of which resemble a necklace (Fig, 2), and the pubic 
arch which resembles the bow of a waist-band (Fig. 3). 

By the term taruna, tender bones, cartilages are denoted. 

^ Reproduced from Sir A. Cunningham's Report. See also Pro- 
fessor Hultzsch, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, 
vol. xl, p. 63, No. 26. 

Fig. 2 

Fig. 3 


Goddess Chulakoka 

Yaksha Suchiloma 

{From the StUpa of Bharhut) 

To face p. Sol 


The statement of Dr. Wise [Hindu System of Medicine^ p. 52) 
that ' the difference [between Susruta's total 300 and Charaka's 
total 360] is owing- to their counting the cartilages with the 
bones' is hardly correct. Both writers include cartilages in 
their counts, though in different ways. The difference in their 
totals is mainly due to Charaka's counting- the thirty-two 
sockets of the teeth as separate bones, and his inchiding the 
twenty nails, neither of which are admitted in the count of 
Susruta. See § 38, col. IV in the Table (p. 93). 

§ 31. Continuation 

1. In the second place the number ten, given in the Tradi- 
tional Recension as the aggregate of the bones of the sole, chister, 
and ankle (Nos. 2, 3, 4 in § 27), is inconsistent with other 
explicit statements of Susruta. His commentator Dallana ^ 
explains that number ten in the following way : 

' The term sole (fala) refers to the five long* bones (■mldkd) and 
to the single bone that connects them. The cluster [kurcd) and 
the ankle [gulplia) contain two bones each. Hence we have 
ten.' (Original Text in § 96, cl. 4.) 

Dallana, therefore, identifies Susruta's sole {tala) with Charaka's 
long bones {SahlM) and base {stiulna), that is, with Nos. 5 and 6 
in § 4. He thus obtains six bones for the sole. Adding to 
them two cluster-bones and two ankle-bones, he makes up the 
aggregate ten. It has been pointed out in § 9, cl. 1 b, that the terms 
cluster {kurca) and base [dhdnd) are merely two different names, 
employed by Susruta and Charaka respectively, for the same 
portion of the hand and foot, viz. the carpus and tarsus. Differ- 
entiating them, after the manner of Dallana, argues a want of 
anatomical knowledge such as cannot be attributed to Susruta. 
In fact, as will be shown in § 40, the person responsible for this 
incongruity is, in all probability, Vagbhata I. But in any case, 
it is qiiite sufficient by itself to discredit the g*enuineness of the 
Traditional Recension. 

^ The earlier commentator Gayadasa also mentions ten as the 
aggregate, though he does not enter into further details. 



2. But further, the aggregate ten conflicts with the explicit 
statements of Susruta himself regarding the number of clusters 
(kurca) and ankle-bones {gulpha). On Dallana's theory there 
would be two clusters and two ankle-bones in either foot, and 
homologously two clusters and two wrist-bones [manibanMa) in 
either hand. This results in an aggregate of eight clusters 
[kurca), four ankle-bones {(j^dpha) and four wrist-bones {manl- 
hanclha). On the other hand, Susruta teaches explicitly that 
there are only four clusters in the hands and feet, two ankle- 
bones and two wrist-bones. Thus in the fifth chapter of the 
Anatomical Section {Sdnra Stiidua) he says : 

' There are six clusters {kurca) in the hands, feet, neck, and 
penis : namely, two in the hands, two in the feet, and one each 
in the neck and penis.' (Original Text in § 96, cl. 5.) 

That is to say, there is one cluster in each hand and foot, 
making four ; also one each in the neck and penis, making two ; 
or an aggregate of six.^ Again in the sixth chapter of the same 
Section, Susruta says : 

' There are two ankle-bones {gulpha) and two wrist-bones 
{^nianibandha)! (Original Text in § 96, cl. 6.) 

3. It is evident, therefore, that Dallana's explanation of the 
aggregate ten involves a doctrine which was not held by 
Susruta. It is, as will be shown in § 39, in reality the doctrine 
of Vagbhata I. An aggregate of ten, in fact, directly conflicts 
with the explicit doctrine of Susruta. According to the latter, 
the sole {tald) consists of five long bones {saldkd, § 28, cl. 3) ; and 

' Kurca simply means a cluster of something, but not iiecessaiily 
a cluster of true bones. In the case of the hands and feet, it is a 
cluster of small bones ; but in the case of the neck, it refers to the 
cluster, or series, of imperfect cartilaginous rings which compose 
the windpipe (trachea), and apparently a similar view was held of the 
structure of the penis. — There are several other passages in the 
Compendium of Susruta which confirm his doctrine of there being- 
only four clusters in the hands and feet. They occur in the sixth 
chapter, on the ' vital spots '. There Susruta speaks of 27 such spots 
in the sinews {sndyu-marmdni, Jiv. ed., p. 337, cl. 10) and 44 such 
spots causing weakness {vaikalya-kardni marmdni, Jiv. ed., p. 338, 
cl. 13). These numbers will not work out correctly, unless the clusters 
included in them are counted as being only four. The peculiar force 
of these passages lies in the indirectness of their evidence. 


there are one cluster {kurca) and one ankle-bone {(jidplia). The 
true ag'greg-ate, therefore, can be no more than seven ; and it 
follows that Susruta's list of the bones, in its genuine form, must 
have contained that aggreg-ate, but not ten. 

\ 32. Continuation 

1. In the third place, the number one hundred and twenty, 
given in the Traditional Recension, as the aggregate of the 
bones of the four extremities, involves (as may be seen from 
the Table in § 27) the incongruity of counting four heels. That 
count is based on a misconstruction of the explanatory direction 
of Susruta. He enumerates the bones of one lower extremity 
{sakth'i) as amounting to thirty, and proceeds to explain that in 
the same way the count of the bones in the other lower extremity, 
as well as in the two upper extremities, must be made. Now 
his aggregate, thirty, of the lower extremity includes the heel 
bone, but it does not follow, therefore, that the same way of 
counting, when applied to the upper extremities, must also 
include a heel bone. In short, Susruta intended his explanation 
to be understood cum grano salis. In the case of the lower 
extremities which contain a heel, the aggregate is thirty ; but in 
the case of the upj^er extremities which do not contain a heel, 
the aggregate, of course, must be twenty-nine. This means that 
no more than two heels may be counted, in making up the 
aggregate of the bones of the four extremities. 

2. I know of no direct evidence as to the exact number of 
heels held by Susruta, such as was available in the case of the 
two difficulties discussed in §§ 30 and 31. But neither is there 
any direct evidence for Susruta's holding four heels, including 
two for the hands. It is also worth noting that the list of 
Charaka includes only two heels ; and there is no reason for 
imputing to Susruta a more incongruous view than Charaka 
held. On the whole, therefore, it is only reasonable to believe 
that the statement of Susruta, in its genuine form, cannot have 
been intended to teach the existence of more than two heels. 

G a 




§ 33. Contitiuation 

1. The result of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs 
(§§ 30-2) is the reduction of the total of the bones, as enumerated 
in the Traditional Recension, from 300 to 290. 

Thus : 

Total of Traditional Recension (§ 27) . 
Add 2 shoulder-blades and 2 eyes (§ 30) 

Deduct 4 bases, 4 clusters, 2 ankle-bones, 

2 wrist-bones (§ 31) . 
Also deduct 2 heels (§ 32) . 





— 14 



2. This resultant shortage of ten bones, of course, must be 
compensated in some way. A comparison of the lists of Charaka 
and Susruta, as shown in the subjoined Table, suggests a solution 
of the difficulty. 

Charaka (§ 7). SuSruta (§ 27). 

1. Teeth .... 



2. Sockets of teeth . 


3. Nails .... 


4. Phalanges 



5. Long bones . 



6. Clusters, or bases . 



7. Ankle-bones and wrist-bones 

5 8 


8. Heels .... 



9. Legs and forearms. 



10. Knees and elbows . 



11. Thighs and arms . 



12, Shoulder-blades . 



13. Collar-bones 



14. Back and pelvis . 



15. Breast .... 



IG. Ribs, &c. . 



17. Neck and windpipe 



18. Palate. 



19. Facial bones 



20. Temples . . . . 



21. Cranial bones 



3. The diverging items in the two lists are Nos. 2, 3, 14, 15, 
17, 18, 19, 21. From among these, No. 3, nails, has no place 


in the system of Susruta, and the divergences in Nos. 2, 14, 17, 
19, 21 depend on differences of anatomical theory which will 
be satisfactorily explained in the Third Section. There remain 
Nos. 15 and 18. It is noteworthy that these are precisely the 
two items in which the Traditional Recension agrees with the 
list of Vagbhata I (Nos. 13, 24 in § 37). Seeing that in two other 
points, abeady mentioned in § 31, the Traditional Recension has 
been unfavourably influenced by the list of Vagbhata I, it suggests 
itself as probable that in these two items also the same influence 
has been at work in causing the numbers eight and one to be 
adopted for the bones of the breast and palate respectively. As 
regards No. 18, palate, the list of Charaka gives two as the 
number of the bones of the palate ; and there is no apparent 
reason why Susruta should be credited with changing it in his 
list (see § 67). As to No. 15^ we have a significant hint in the 
Non-medical Version of Atreya's list of the bones (§ 16). The 
g-enuine list of Atreya^ as handed down by Charaka and Bheda, 
has only fourteen bones for the breast (No. 24 in §§ 4, 12, and 
No. 21 in § 7). The Non-medical Version of that list must 
have obtained its false number seventeen from some extraneous 
medical source ; and it suggests itself that this source can 
have been no other than the list of Susruta, as it stood at the 
time when the Non-medical A'^ersion was composed. 

4. From these considerations it appears very probable that the 
original and genuine recension of the list of Susruta allotted 
seventeen bones to the breast and two to the palate, instead of 
eight and one — the numbers which we now find in the Traditional 
Recension. The difference between these two sets of numbers 
(17 + 2 = 19, and 8 + 1 = 9) is ten, that is to say, precisely the 
number we require to make good the shortage that results from 
the adjustments discussed in §§ 30-2. This coincidence tends 
to confirm the conclusion that the list of Susruta, in its genuine 
form, must have given seventeen bones to the breast, and two 
bones to the palate. 


^ 34. Restored Recension of Susrutas Statement 

1. We are now in a position to sum up the defects of the 
Traditional Recension, and restore what must have been the 
genuine form of the list of Susruta. 

2. The Traditional Recension is wrong* in the following" five 
points : 

{a) It contains two misreadings (§ 29) ; viz. abdomen {iidara) 
for shoulder {amsa), and the phrase ' what is called collar-bone ' 
{aksaka-samjna) for ' collar-bone and shoulder-blade ' {aksak- 

{b) It omits four bones ; viz. the two shoulder-blades and 
the two eyeballs (§ 30). 

{c) It gives the aggregate of its Nos. 2, 3, 4 wrongly as ten, 
instead of seven (§ 31), resulting' in the wrong aggregate, thirty, 
for the bones of a lower extremity, instead of twenty-seven. 

{(1) It counts wrongly four heels, instead of two (§ 32), 
resulting in the false aggregate 120 of the bones of the four 
extremities, instead of 106. 

[e) It counts wrongly eight bones of the breast, and one bone 
of the palate, instead of seventeen and two respectively (§ 33). 
And these false counts, together with those named in lit. b, 
result in the wrong aggregates 117 of the bones of the trunk, 
and 63 of the neck and head (§ 27), instead of 128 and 66 

3. Accordingly, the genuine statement of Susruta must have 
run as follows, the restorations being in italics : 

' The professors of General Medicine speak of three hundred 
and sixty bones ; but books on Surgical Science know only 
of three hundred. Of these there are one hundred and six in the 
extremities ; one hundred and twenty-eight in the pelvic cavity, 
sides, back, shoulder, and breast ; and from the neck upwards, 
sixty-six. In this wise the total of the three hundred bones is 
made up. Now in each toe of the foot there are three bones ; 
this makes altogether fifteen. Those bones which constitute 
the sole, cluster^ and ankle are seven. In the heel there is one ; 
there is also one in the thigh. Thus there are ttventy-seven bones 
in one lower limb. The same count applies to the other lower 
limb, and similarly to the two upper limbs. In the pelvic 




cavity there are five bones. Of these there are four in the anus, 
pubes, and hips; and the fifth constitutes the triangular sacrum. 
There are thirty-six bones in one side, and as many in the other. 
In the back there are thirty ; seventeen in the breast ; two 
each in the collar-hone and slwnlder-llades ; nine in the neck •, 
four in the windpipe, and two in the jaws. The teeth number 
thirty-two. In the nose there are three bones ; two in the 
palate ; one each in either cheek, eye, ear, and temple ; and six 
in the cranium.' (Orig-inal Text in § 89.) 

4. The p-enuine list of bones as thus restored is shown in the 

subjoined Table : 

I. Four Extremities. 



Phalanges {anguii) . . . 1 5 x 

Soles {tcda) 5 \ 

Cluster {kilrca) 1 . . . 7 x 

Ankle-bone (gulpha) 1 

Heel (pdrmi) . . . . 1 x 

4 = 
4 = 




2 — 



Legs (janc/ha) . . . . 2 X 
Knee {jdnu) . . . . . 1 x 

4 = 
4 = 



Thighs {uru) 1 X 

II. Trunk. 

4 = 



Pelvic cavity (^roni) 
Sides (ribs, 2)a7-Sva) 

36 X 

2 = 




Back (prstha). 

Breast {uras) .... 



Collar-bones (aksaka) 
Shoulder-blades (amsaja) 



III. Neck and Head. 



Neck (grlvd) .... 
Windpipe [kanthanddi) . 
Jaws {Imnu) , 



Teeth {danta) 



Nose {ndsa) . 



Palate (tdlu) . 
Cheeks (ganda) 
Eyeballs {aksi/wsa). 



Ears ikarna) . 



Temples {kmkha) . 
Cranium {Hras) 


nd total 





— 66 


§ 35. Gaugddha7''s Receyision of Suh'utas Statement 

1. Gangadhav's Recension of Snsruta's statement on tlie 
skeleton runs as follows : 

' In the surg-ical text-book of Susruta the number of the bones 
of the human body is given as only three hundred. Of these 
there are one hundred and eight in the extremities ; one hundred 
and twenty-six in the pelvic cavity, sides, back, collar-bones (aha), 
and breast ; and from the neck upwards, sixty-six. In this wise, 
the total of three hundred is made up. Now in each toe of the 
foot there are three bones ; this makes altogether fifteen. Those 
bones which constitute the sole, cluster, and ankle are seven. 
In the heel there is one ; in the leg there are two ; in the knee 
there is one ; also in the thigh there is one. Thus there are 
twenty-seven bones in one lower limb. The same count applies 
to the other lower limb, as well as to the two upper limbs. 
This makes up a total of one hundred and eight bones. In the 
pelvic cavity there are five bones ; of these there are two 
in the hips ; and the arms, pubes, and sacrum are constituted 
each of one bone. In one side there are thirty-six bones, and as 
many in the other. In the back there are thirty ; two are in 
what is called the collar-bone ; seventeen in the breast ; eleven 
in the neck ; four in the windpipe ; and two in the jaws. The 
teeth number thirty-two. In the nose there are three bones, 
two in the palate ; one each in either cheek, ear, and temple, 
making together six ; and there are six in the cranium. These 
make altogether sixty-six. Thus the grand total of three hundred 
is made up. This is the list of the bones of the skeleton.' 
(Original Text in § 90.) 

2. The list may be shown in tabular form, thus : 

I. Four Extremities. 

1. Phalanges (anguli). . . . 15 x 4= 60 

2. Soles (tala) 5\ 

3. Clusters {kiirca) 1 [ . . . 7 x 4 x 28 

4. Ankles {gu^ilia) l) 

5. Heels {pdrmi) . . . . 1x4=4 

6. Legs {jangha) . . . . 2x4=8 

7. Knees (jcinu) . . . . 1x4=4 

8. Thighs {uru) . . . . 1x4=4 

— 108 




II. Trunk. 


Pelvic cavity {ironi) 



Sides (ribs, pdrSva) . . . 36 X 2 

= 72 


Back {prstha) .... 



Breast {iiras) . . . 



Collar-bone (aksaka) 

III. Neck and Head. 



Neck {grtvd) . . ' . 



Windpipe {kanthanacli) . 



Jaws (lianu) ..... 



Teeth {danta). .... 



Nose {nCisd) 



Palate {tdlu) ..... 



Cheeks [ganda) .... 



Ears {karna) ..... 



Temples (iankha) .... 



Cranium {iiras) .... 

Grand total 



— 66 

3. Comparing' the above list with that given in the preceding" 
paragraph, it will be seen at once that it is really an attempt 
made by Gangadhar to restore the genuine text of the statement 
of Susruta. Moreover, it is made on much the same lines, 
though some of the more important defects of the Traditional 
Recension have escaped his attention. Thus he still counts four 
heels, instead of two, and omits the two shoulder-blades ; and con- 
sequently his aggregates for tlie four extremities and the trunk 
are 108 and 126, instead of the true aggregates 106 and 128. 
He also fails to notice the omission of the two eyeballs; and 
hence, to make up the required total 300, he wrongly counts 
eleven neck-bones instead of nine. On the other hand, he 
rightly recognizes the error of the Traditional Recension in respect 
of the true number of the clusters and ankle-bones, and thus 
arrives at the true aggregates seven and twenty-seven, instead 
of ten and thirty. Similarly he recognizes the error with 
respect to the number of the bones of the breast and palate, 
restoring their time numbers seventeen and two, instead of eight 
and one. Further, he recognizes the misreading vdara, abdo- 
men, for which, however, he substitutes the insufficient reading 


aJcm (short for akmka), collar-bone.^ Ou the otlier haud, his 
failure to realize the omission of the shoulder-blades prevented 
him from recognizing the misreading involved in the phrase 
a/csaka-samjna (§ 29), 

^ 36. Susrutas Statement in otlier Medical Works 

1. It has been mentioned in § 26 that the Traditional Recen- 
sion of the statement of Susruta is found in the two medical 
works, Sdrira Padminl and Bhdva Pmkdm. 

2. In the Sdrlm Padminl (verses 70 and 71) it runs as 
follows : 

' In the sequel, the skeleton {klkasa) is explained as numbering 
three hundred bones in accordance with the count of the ancient 
Surg'ical Text-book. There are altogether one hundred and 
twenty bones in the extremities ; one hundred and seventeen 
in the pelvic cavity, sides, abdomen, breast, and back ; and sixty- 
three in the neck and upwards. Counting* them, item by item, 
there are three hundred ; but in respect of their shape, they are 
divisible into five classes.' (Original Text in § 91.) 

3. In the Bhdva Prakdm the statement runs as follows : 

' In the Surgical Text-book the number of bones is stated to 
be three hundred. These, as well as their position in the body, 
are as follows : One hundred and twenty bones are said to be in 
the extremities. In the two sides, hips, breast, back, and abdo- 
men, — in all these, one should know, there are altogether one 
hundred and seventeen. In the neck and upwards there exist 
sixty-three bones.' (Orig-inal Text in § 92.) 

C. The System of Vagbhata I 

{37. Tlie Statement of Vdghhata I 

1. The system of Vagbhata I regarding the bones of the 
human body is contained in the fifth chapter of the Anatomical 
Section {Sdrira Slhdna) of his Summary, and runs as follows: 

' Possiblj' suggested to him by Chandrata's revised text ; see below, 




' In the bod}^ there are three hundred and sixty bones. Of 
these there are one hundred and forty in the extremities ; one 
hundred and twenty in the trunk, and one hundred in the head. 
That is to say, in each lower limb there are five nails ; three 
bones in each toe, aggreg-ating fifteen ; five long- bones with one 
bone to support them ; two bones each in the cluster, ankle, and 
leg ; and one bone each in the heel, knee, and thig*h. All these, 
nails and bones, exist also in the upper limbs exactly as in 
the lower. There are twenty-four ribs, and just as many sockets 
and tubercles. There are thirty bones in the back, eight in the 
breast, one each in the pubes and sacrum ; two in the two hips, 
and as many severally in the collar-bones, shoulder-peaks (amsa), 
and shoulder-blades, as well as in the windpipe (Jafru) and 
palate jointly ; thirteen in the neck ; four in the windpipe 
{kanthanddl) ; and two in the jaws. There are thirty-two teeth, 
and as many sockets. There are three bones in the nose, and 
six in the cranium.' 

2. The total 360, detailed in the above statement, works otit 
as shown in the subjoined Table : 

I. Four Extremities. 


Nails [nakha) 

5 X4 = 20 


Phalanges {anyuli) 


X 5 X 4 = 60 


Long bones {Salaka) . 

5 X 4 = 20 


Bases {pratibandhaha) 



Clusters ijcurca) 

2 x4= 8 


Ankle-bones {gulpha) . 

2x4= 8 


Legs {jangha) . 

2 x4= 8 


Heels Ipdrsni) . 



Knee (jdnu) 



Thigh (?7nt) 




11. T^ihs {pdrhaka) 24 \ 
Sockets (siAaZa^-a) 24 [ 
Tubercles {a rbuda) 24' 

12. Back (prstha) 

13. Breast (uras) 

14. Pubes [bhaga) . 

15. Sacrum (trika) . 

16. Hips (nitamba) . 

17. Collar-bones {aksaka), 

18. Shoulder-peaks {arhsa) 

19. Shoulder-blades (amsa-phalaka) 










— 120 



Head [and Neckj. 

20. Cheeks {ganda) . 

• • 


21. Ears {karna) 

• • 

2 1 

22. Temples (s'ai'ikha) 



23. Windpipe (jatrit) 



24. Palate (talu) 

• * 


25. Neck {gr'ivd) 


, , 


26. Windpipe (kantlianadi) 



27. Jaw-attachments {lianu- 



28. Teeth {danta) . 




29. Sockets {ulilkJiala) 




30. Nose {7iasd) 


, , 


31. Cranium (Siras) . 

Grand total 


— 100 


{38. Criticism of the Statement of Vdghhata I 

1. A comparison of the statement of Vag-bhata I with the 
Traditional Recensions of the statements of Charaka and Susruta 
shows plainly that the former is a combination of the two latter. 
The list of Susruta contains 300 bones ; that of Charaka 360. 
Vao-bhata I adopts the list of Susruta, and enlarges it by 
adopting- from the list of Charaka such items as appear to be 
omitted by Susruta. He does not explain his reason for pro- 
ceeding in this manner ; but it may be surmised to have been 
something of this kind. It has been pointed out in § 30 that 
the traditional list of Susruta is incomplete in I'espect of the 
shoulder-blades. The omission is too conspicuous to be easily 
overlooked ; and it would seem that Vagbhata I had recognized 
it, and that he was thus caused to mistrust the exhaustiveness 
of Susruta's list of 300 bones, especially as he knew that the 
list of Charaka included no less than 360 bones. Noticing that 
the list of Charaka contained several items which were absent 
from that of Susruta, he concluded that the number 360 was 
the trae total of the bones of the skeleton, and that this number 
might be secured by inserting, from the list of Charaka into 
that of Susruta, all the apparently missing items. Of course, 
such a proceeding is altogether superficial and theoretical, and 
proves a total want of experimental knowledge of the composi- 
tion of the skeleton ; for, in reality (as will be shown in the 
Third Section, see the Table in § 46), both systems, of Susruta as 




well as Charaka, are, from their respective points of view, exhaus- 
tive. The procedure, here imputed to Vag-bhata I, may seem 
strange ; but the evidence for it, set out in the sequel, is very strong. 
2. The case may be illustrated by the subjoined Table : 


TT— 1 1 J 











1. Nails . 




2. Phalanges . 




3. Long bones . 




4. Bases {sthdna) 




5. Clusters (kiirca) . 




6. Ankle - bones and 





7. Legs and forearms 





8. Heels . 




9. Knees and elbows . 




10. Thighs and arms . 




11. Eibs, sockets, &c. . 




12. Back . 




1 3. Breast . 




14. Pubes . 




15 a. Sacrum 



\oh. Anus . 


16. Hips . 




17. Collar-bones. 




18 Shoulder-peaks 




1 9. Shoulder-blades . 




20. Cheeks 




21a. Ears . 



21 &. Eyes . 

22. Temples 




23. Windpipe (jatru) . 




24. Palate . 




25. Neck (gr'ivd). 




26. Windpipe (^cm//i«). 



27. Jaws . 




28. Teeth . 




29. Sockets of Teeth . 





30. Nose . 



1 ' 

31. Cranium 




Totals . 





1 To Vagbhata's Nos. 20, 27, 30, aggregating 7, correspond 
Charaka's Nos. 26, 27, 28 (§4), aggregating 4. 


3. The following points may be observed. In the first place, 
the list of Vagbhata contains every item of the Susrutiyan 
Traditional Recension (§ 27). To these it adds Nos. 1, 18, 19, 
23, 29 from the list of Charaka (§ 4), aggregating 57. This 
aggregate is short of the required sixty by three. From 
Nos. 15 h and 25, in column II, it appears that Vagbhata I 
obtained the required three by adding four to No. 25 and 
deducting No. 15 h \ that is to say, he counted thirteen neck- 
bones, instead of nine, and omitted the anal bone as a separate 
item. The reason for his adopting this, apparently, very 
arbitrary proceeding can only be conjectured. The following 
however suggests itself. It is significant that Yagbhata's 
No. 25 numbers thii'teen, the exact sum of Susruta's Nos. 25 
and 26. Both these two items constitute the same part of the 
body : in Sanskrit, both grivd and kantha denote the neck, the 
former referring more especially to the posterior, the latter to 
the anterior portion. This being so, Vagbhata placed to the 
credit of No. 25 the aggregate amount thirteen, which Susruta 
had divided between Nos. 25 and 26. But as he thus obtained 
one bone in excess (i. e. four instead of three) he saved one bone 
by counting the two bones in Nos. 15 a and 15 5 as constituting 
a single bone. He could do this all the more readily as he could 
not help observing that in the system of Charaka (as will be 
shown in § 60) the sacrum and coccyx (or anal bone) constitute 
but a single bone, which that system includes among its forty-five 
bones of the vertebral column. 

4. The explanation of Vagbhata's procedure, here suggested, 
of com'se, involves the assumption of his failing to note that he 
counted the four bones of No. 26 (i. e. the windpipe) twice 
over ; that is, once separately, in No. 26, and again as included 
in the thirteen bones of No. 25. But this is, by no means, the 
only instance of such inattention on the part of Vagbhata I. We 
have another conspicuous example in his Nos. 4 and 5, where he 
also counts the same bones twice over, once in No. 4 as bases 
[sthdna) and again in No. 5 as clusters {kurca), these being the 
Charakiyan and Susrutiyan terms respectively for the same 
organ (see § 49). There is a third instance in Vagbhata's 
Nos. 23 and 26, where he counts the windpipe twice over ; 



once in No. 23 under the Charakiyan term jatru, and again in 
No. 26, under the Susrutiyan term kanthantull. In fact, if the 
explanation, suggested above, is correct, Vagbhata I actually 
counts the windj^ipe thrice over, in Nos. 23, 25, and 26. 

5. The inconsistencies, or incongruities, mentioned above are 
not the only ones of the list of Vagbhata I. There are others, 
affecting his Nos. 5, 6, and 8. In No. 5, he counts eight 
clusters [kurca), that is, two in either hand and foot. But in 
the same fifth chapter of his Anatomical Section {odrlra StJidna) 
he says that there are altogether only six clusters, of which, 
moreover, two are in the neck [grlvd) and penis {medhra), leaving 
only four for the hands and feet (Original Text in § 96, cl. 5). 
According to his own statement, therefore, there is only one 
cluster in either hand and foot. Again in No. 6, Vagbhata I 
counts eight bones in the ankles, that is to say, according to the 
horaological princii:)le of his list, four ankle-bones {gidpha) in the 
feet, and four wrist-bones {maalbhanda) in the hands. But in 
the seventh chapter of his Anatomical Section, treating* of the 
'vital spots' {marmaii). he counts only two ankle-bones and 
two wrist-bones (Original Text in § 96, cl. 6). Again in No. 8, 
Vagbhata I counts four heels ; that is to say, one in each of the 
four limbs ; and thus commits the incongruity of ascribing 
a heel to either hand. 

6. There is another incongruity in Vagbhata's No. 27, he 
counts two hanu-bandhana, or jaw-attachments. Susruta counts 
two hanv, or jaws, and Charaka counts two hanumula-handhana, 
or attachments at the base of the (lower) jaw. Both are con- 
sistent views ; for, as will be explained in § 65, in the system of 
Susruta the two lumu signify the two maxillary bones (superior 
and inferior), while in the system of Charaka the two handhana 
signify the two rami of the inferior maxillary, Vagbhata I, 
noticing the terminological difference, but not understanding its 
reason, sought to compromise it by adopting* the contracted 
term ha?m-Landha)ia, or jaw-attachment, and treating it as 
a synonym of the simple term hanu, jaw ; the two jaws being, 
in his view, as it were two attachments to the face. 

7. There is a further inconsistency in Vagbhata's omitting* to 
count the two eyeballs {aksikom) in his number-list, while he 


mentions them in his class-list of the very same bones (Original 
Text in § 93) which he adopts from Susruta. He also adopts 
from Susruta the description of the outer cover, or shell, of the 
eyeball as made of bone (§ 30, Orig-inal Text in § 96, cl. 2). The 
fact is interesting, because it shows that the text of the Com- 
pendium of Susruta, on which Vagbhata I based his anatomical 
theories, was already in his time in a corrupt state. It is not 
probable that if Vagbhata I had found the eyeballs included 
among the bones in the number-list of Susruta, he would 
have omitted them from his own number-list, while it is quite 
credible, considering his other inconsistencies, that he should 
not have recognized their wrongful omission from the list of 

8. The inconsistencies and incongruities as exposed above 
clearly prove that Vagbhata I possessed no experimental know- 
ledge of the skeleton, but that he constructed his list of its bones 
theoretically from the information provided in the Compendia 
of Charaka and Susruta — which compendia, as we shall see in 
the following paragraph, he cannot have possessed in their 
original and genuine form, and which, from want of anatomical 
knowledge, he was unfitted to use critically. 

^39. Relation of Vcighhatcis List to the Traditional 
List of Chara.ka and Susruta 

A comparison of the list of Vagbhata I with the traditional 
lists of Charaka and Susruta, as exhibited in the Table in the 
preceding paragraph, brings out the following points : 

1. The principle on which the list of Vagbhata I is constructed 
is to take the list of Susruta as its basis, and add to it such items 
of the list of Charaka as do not occur in it. 

2. The list of Susruta which forms the basis of the list of 
Vagbhata is, in every point, identical with the traditional list 
of Susruta as it at present exists (§ 27). This is proved by the 
fact that the list of Vagbhata shows every one of the inconsis- 
tencies which have been exposed in §§ 30-3 as existing in the 
Traditional Recension of Susruta's list. That is to say : (a) both 
reckon the aggregate of Nos. 3-5 (§ 37, or Nos. 2-4 in § 27) as 


ten, resulting- in the ag-greg-ate forty for the four extremities ; 
[h) in order to make up that aggregate ten, both count eight 
clusters, and four ankle-bones and four wrist-bones; also they 
count four bases in addition to the four clusters ; {c) both count 
four heels ; [d) both omit the two shoulder-blades ^ and the two 
eyeballs ; {e) both count wrongly eight bones and one bone in 
Nos. 13 and 24 respectively. 

3. The list of Vagbhata I is indebted to the list of Charaka in 
two ways : {a) in order to raise the grand total from 300 to 360, 
the former adopts Nos. 1, 18, 19, 23, 29 from the latter ; and 
{b) in order to obtain the aggregate ten for Nos. 3-6, it similarly 
adopts No. 4, bases (§31). 

4. The list of Charaka on which Vagbliata I has drawn for 
his additions, is identical with the Traditional Recension of it 
as we have it in the manuscripts of the present day (§ 4). This 
is proved by the fact that both lists possess No. 18, shoulders, 
and No. 19, shoulder-blades. It has been shown in § 6 that the 
repetition of amsa, shoulder, by the side of aima-plialaka^ shoulder- 
blade, is an ancient corruption of the traditional text of the list 
of Charaka. Seeing that Vagbhata I adopts the error into his 
own list, it is evident that he read the list of Charaka, as we 
still have it, in the traditional text of our own day. The 
procedure of Vagbhata I, however, explains a peculiarity of his 
system. The shoulder-girdle contains only two separate bones, 
the collar-bone {akmka, No. 17) and the shoulder-blade (a/hsa- 
phalaka. No. 19), see § 56, cl. 2. Finding*, in his text of Charaka, 
the apparent mention oiamsa as a third bone, and not suspecting- 
an error, he appears to have explained it by taking" amm to refer 
to the so-called ' shoulder- peak ' (amsa-kuta), or the acromion 
process (§ 55, cl. 5). In this explanation he would probably 
have felt himself justified by the practice, observed l)y Charaka 
and Susruta, of occasionally counting* ' processes ' of bones as 
separate bones (§ 44, cl. 1) ; but in doing so, he failed to notice 
that with those two writers amsa, in its technical sense, is 
a synonym of aksaka and denotes the collar-bone, while, when 
used in a loose way, it indicates the shoulder g*enerally (§ 55, cl. 4). 

' The two shoul(ler-])lades, it is true, oppear in the list of Vagbhata f . 
but they have been adopted into it froin the list of Charaka. 



Vag'bhata I's ill-conceived inter])retation of the term amsa led to 
another unfortunate result, inasmuch as it appears to have 
served as the basis of the definition of amsa, which is g-iven in the 
Amarakom, the famous A'^ocabulary of Amarasimha, and which, 
in its turn, led to the misinterpretation of the term jatru ; see 
§ 62, el. 8. 

^ 40. The Rdative Date of the Three Lists 

1. We are now in a position to draw certain conclusions 
regarding" the approximate dates of the traditional lists of 
Charaka and Susruta in relation to the list of Vagbhata I. 

2. It has been shown in the preceding paragraph that the list 
of the bones of the human body as constructed by Vagbhata I is 
substantially identical with the lists of Charaka and Susruta as 
we possess them in the manuscripts of the present day. More- 
over, at least three corruptions of the latter two lists, viz. the 
repetition of aihsa, shoulder, in the list of Charaka (§ 6), and 
the omission of the shoulder-blades and the eyeballs in the list 
of Susruta (§ 30), must have existed in their texts already in the 
time of Vagbhata I; for, as explained in the two preceding 
paragraphs the construction of his list presupposes them. 
Accordingly both lists, in their traditionally corrupted form, 
must be anterior to the date of Vagbhata I whatever the latter 
may be. On the other hand, it has been shown (pp. 7Q, 79, 85), 
regarding the omission of the shoulder-blades and eyeballs, and 
the count of seventeen bones in the neck, that the Non-medical 
Version of Atreya's system presupposes the knowledge of 
a recension of Susruta's text which was more correct, and 
therefore presumably older than the corrupt traditional text. 
Similarly the Non-medical Version which ignores the erroneous 
repetition of amsa, shoulder (§§ 6, 16, 17), presupposes the 
knowledge of an older and more correct recension of the text 
of Charaka. Accordingly at the time when the Non-medical 
Version was composed, both the lists of Charaka and Susruta 
must have existed in the earlier uncorrupted form, and the 
corrupt recension, traditionally handed down, must have come 
into existence at a later date : that is to say, between the date 


of the Law-book of Yajnavalkya, which contains the Non-medical 
Version, and the date of the construction of the list of Vagbhata I. 
As the date of the Law-book is about 350 a.d. (§ 14), the origin 
of the two traditional recensions cannot be placed earlier than 
the fourth century a.d. 

3. The question suggests itself whether Vagbhata I himself 
might not be the author of the Traditional Recension of the 
statement of Susruta on the bones of the human body. The 
evidence is not sufficient to return a decided answer ; but 
whatever evidence there is seems certainly to point in that 
direction. The statement of Susruta (§ 27) gives the aggregate 
of the bones contained in Nos. 2, 3, 4 of his list, but does not 
detail the number of bones of each item : sole (fala), cluster 
(kdrca), and ankle {gulj)ha). Whoever fixed the details so as to 
make the sole {tala) to include not only the five long bones 
{midkd) but also the base {sthdua), must have been led to do so 
by noticing that the list of Charaka mentions the base {sthdua)^ 
while the list of Susruta does not name it. He concluded, 
therefore, that Susruta's term sole [fala) must cover both the 
long bones {mid Jed) as well as the base {sthdna). In other words, 
whoever fixed the details proceeded on the principle of adding 
to the list of Susruta such items from the list of Charaka as did 
not appear to be contained in it explicitly. This, as has been 
shown in § 39, is precisely the principle on which Vag'bhata I 
worked in constructing his own list. It seems probable, therefore, 
that it was Vagbhata I who for the purpose of preparing his 
own list, constructed the Traditional Recension of the list of 

4. It is a well-known fact that the text of Susruta's Compen- 
dium, after a time, fell into some disorder, which necessitated 
revision or reconstruction. Several such revisions, or reconstruc- 
tions, must have been undertaken at different times. The first 
reconstruction may have been that to which we owe the addition 
of the Supplementary Section ( Uitara Tantra). This is traditionally 
ascribed to Nagarjuna, in the second century a.d. (§ 2). Seeing 
that the traditional text of neither Charaka nor Susruta existed 
about 350 a.d., the approximate date of the Law-book of 
Yajnavalkya, it follows that Nagilijuna, if he made any reeon- 

H 2 


struction of the text of Susruta's Compendium, can at all exents 
not be credited with the particular reconstruction of Susruta's 
statement on the skeleton. Another revision was made by 
Chandrata, the son of Tisata. He states this fact himself at 
the end of his revised text, which he calls a pdtha-suddhi or 
' Emendation of the Text '. We have a copy of this revised 
text in the unique manuscript of the India Office Library, 
No. 1842 (Cat. No. 2646), described on pp. 927, 928 of the 
catalogue. So far as a cursory examination permits one to 
judge, it does occasionally, though not very materially, differ 
from the Traditional Recension of th Compendium. But in 
the statement on the skeleton there occurs a noteworth}' varia 
lectio. Instead of the erroneous reading tidara, abdomen, of the 
traditional text (§ 29), Chandrata's text has aksa, collar-bone.^ 
This circumstance — so far as it goes — makes against the 
hypothesis that Chandrata was the author of the Traditional 
Recension. But there are two stronger objections to it in 
Chandrata's late date and comparative obscurity. The date of 
Chandrata is not known; but it cannot well be earlier than the 
ninth or tenth century, because in his Commentary on the 
Cikitsd-l'alikd^ of his father Tisata he quotes from the comple- 
ment of Charaka's Compendium, which was made by Dridhabala; 
and the date of the latter must be in the eighth or ninth 
century (§ 2, cl. 9). He does not quote Bhoja^, while both Chakra- 
panidatta and Gayadasa quote him, but do not quote each other. 
Hence it appears probable that the last-mentioned two authors 
were near contemporaries who were preceded by Bhoja who 
himself was preceded by Chandrata. As the date of Chakrapani- 
datta is about 1060 a.d., the date of Chandrata may be referred 
to about 1000 A.D. As to the point of obscurity, so much may 
be taken as certain, that whoever was the author of the Traditional 

^ Also adopted by Gangadhar(§ 35); possibly from Chandrata. 

* See Professor Jolly's article in the Journal, German Oriental 
Society, vol. Ix, pp. 413 ff. 

^ Once however, Bodleian MS. (Fraser No. 21, Cat. No. 852), fob 
96 6, he quotes Bhoja the elder {vrddha Bhoja). The earliest mention 
of Chandrata, known to me, occurs in S'rlkanthadatta's commentary 
on the Siddhayoga (Poona ed., p. 552). The date of S'rikantha, a pupil 
of Vijaya Rakshita, is about 1260 a.d. 


Recension must have been a person of great reputation ; for 
otherwise it is. inconceivable how his recension should have 
obtained such paramount authority as to supersede every other 
recension, and to be the only one found in all existing manu- 
scripts, and exclusively commented on in all known com- 
mentaries.^ Chandrata certainly cannot be said to have held 
such a position. The only ancient medical author who by the 
uniform tradition of India holds a place equal to that of Charaka 
and Susruta is Vagbhata I. He is the third in the traditional 
triad of great representatives of Indian medicine : Charaka, 
Susruta, Vagbhata.^ It has been shown (§§ 38, 39) that the 
principle on which the Traditional Recension of the statement 
of Susruta is made is certainly one on which Vagbhata I worked 
in constructing his ow^n statement. The conclusion therefore 
seems unavoidable that it was Vagbhata I who is the author of 
that Traditional Recension. The fact that the older recensions 
still existed in the fourth century a.d,, at the date of the 
Law-book of Yajnavalkya, and the consideration that a sufficient 
interval must be conceded for the text to have fallen into such 
a state of corruption as to necessitate a thorough revision, or 
reconstruction, will accord with the early seventh century a.d. 
as the date of Vagbhata I, already suggested by other considera- 
tions (see § 2). It should, how^ever, be distinctly understood 
that these conclusions regarding the date and authorship of 
Vagbhata I are not put forward as established facts. They are, 
for the present, no more than historical speculations, or rather 
a working hypothesis, based on more or less conclusive evidence. 
Note. — Whatever may be thought of the suggested authorship 
of the traditional text of Susruta, there is distinct evidence of 
the text of Susruta's Compendium having been liable to be 
affected by the theories of Vagbhata I. For example, according 
to Susruta's doctrine, in the Anatomical Section {Sdnra Sthdna), 

' This remark refers particularly to the Traditional Receusion of 
the statement on the skeleton, which is the only one known to, and 
commented on by Gayadasa and Dallana. They give no indication of 
being aware of the existence of any other recension of that particular 

* See Professor Jolly's Indian Medicine, § 9. See also p. 1 for 
the testimony of the Chinese pilgrim Itsing. 


chapter v, clause 33 (Original Text in § 94, cl. 1), there are 
altogether 500 muscles in the human body. Of these 500 
muscles, 400 g-o to the four extremities, while there are 66 in the 
trunk and 34 in the neck and head. This is the traditional 
reading of that doctrine, as printed by Jivananda, p. 334, and 
supported by existing manuscripts. Dallana, in his Commentary' 
(Jiv. ed., p. 578), accepts that reading, but expressly states that 
Gayadasa's Commentary followed a different reading, which 
allotted 60 muscles to the trunk and 40 to the neck and 
head ; and he adds that this distribution of the muscles is also 
taught by Vagbhata I. Dallana's statement is verified by the 
Cambridge MS. of Gayadasa's Commentary,^ and the printed 
text of Vagbhata's Summary {Astdnga Sanigralia), vol. i, p. 225, 
line 21. 

§ 41. The Origin of the Traditional Recension 

1. The homological character of the skeletal structure is too 
conspicuous in the four extremities to have escaped the notice 
of Atreya-Charaka. But that he did not fully realize it, is 
shown, inter cdia, by his treatment of the cranial bones, as com- 
pared with that of Susruta (see §§ 28, 63). It was the latter 
who first recognized that the homological principle dominated 
the whole structure, and who explicitly used it as the basis of 
his classificatory list of the bones. This is shown, e. g., by 
his distribution of the ribs into two sets of 36 bones each (§ 27), 
and by his hemisection of the vertebral column and of the 
frontal and other bones of the head (§§ 44, 59, 63). In one 
point, however, viz. the asci'iption of three bones to each digit 
(p. 73), Susruta pressed the homological principle too far ; see § 47. 
A agbhata I adopted that principle from Susruta, but pressed it 
one point farther, extending it, still more erroneously (at least, in 
the sense in which he applied it) to the heels, of which he 
counted four, ascribing heels to the two hands as well as to the 
two feet. 

' Unfortunately the clause refen-ing to the muscles is very badly 
mutilated in the MS., hut sufficient of it still remains to confirm 
Dallana's statement. See my Article on the Conunentaries cm Suiruta, 
in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1906. 


2. It is Vagbhata's extended application of the homological 
principle which explains the origin of the Traditional Recension 
of Susrata's list of the bones. That list (§ 27) states only the 
aggregate of the three items (Nos. 3, 3, 4), sole (fala), cluster 
{kurca), ankle {gulpha). In order to determine the details of this 
aggregate, Vagbhata I consulted the list of Charaka. Here 
(§ 4} he found the three items, No. 5, long bones [saliika)^ No. 6, 
base (sthdna), No. 8^ ankle [gulpha). Failing to notice that the 
bases of Charaka were equivalent to the clusters of Susruta, 
he concluded that Susruta's sole [tala) must include the long 
bones {saldkci) as well as the bases (st/uina) of Charaka's list ; 
and he thus set up four items : long bones, base, cluster, ankle, 
as identical with Susruta's three items : sole, cluster, ankle. 
Fui'ther, noticing that the list of Charaka counted four ankle- 
bones in the two feet (No. 8 in § 4), he allotted two bones to 
Susruta's ankle, and similarly two bones, to his cluster, forgetting' 
that Susruta himself had elsewhere allotted only one bone to 
either, the cluster and the ankle.^ Such would seem to have 
])een the consideration on which Vagbhata I arrived at the 
details of his own four (or Susruta's three) items ; as thus : 

, j long bones, 5 bones 
I base, 1 bone 

cluster, 2 bones 
aukle, 2 bones 

Next, on the principle of homology, he multiplied this 

aggregate by four, obtaining forty as the grand aggregate of 

the bones of his four items in the four extremities. Bv a further, 

but erroneous, application of the same principle to Susruta's 

No. 5, heel [pdrmi), he obtained his four heels ; and the correct 

application of it to Susruta's Nos. 6, 7, 8 (§ 27) gave him another 

set of sixteen bones. Totalling the sums so far obtained (i.e. 

40 + 4 + 16 = 60), and adding the sixty phalanges (No. 1 in § 27), 

Vagbhata arrived at the grand total of one hundred and twenty 

for the bones of the four extremities. 

3. Let us remember that the list of Susruta in its original 

^ The fact that Susruta looked upon the ankles of the foot as 
constituting but one bone, is illustrated by tlie term valaya, anklet, 
wiiich he applies to them. Tlic valaya is a heavy bangle worn on the 
foot ; see Fig. 2 illustrating § 30. 

aggregate 10 bones. 




form counted seventeen bones in the breast and two in the 
palate (§ 33). The numbers in that list must have been as 
below : 


2\^eck mid Head. 


Pelvis . . 5 bones 


Xeck . . 9 bones 


Sides . . 72 ., 

15, IG. 

WindpijDe, jaw 6 „ 


Back . . 30 „ 


Teeth . . 32 „ 


Breast . .17,, 

18, 19. 

Nose, palate . 5 ,, 


Collar-bones . 2 ,, 


Cheeks, &c. . 12 „ 

Total 126 

Total 64 

Aecordingly Snsruta's list would have contained the following 
totals : 

Four Extremities (as calculated by Vagbhata I) 120 

Trunk .126 

Xeck aud Head ...... 64 

Grand total 310 

This grand total ha\-ing ten bones in excess of the required 
300, it became necessary for Vagbhata I to make a corresponding 
reduction somewhere. He determined to make it in the bones 
of the breast and palate, reducing their numbers from seventeen 
and two (=19) to eight and one (=9) respectively — an opera- 
tion which gave him just the required ten (19 — 9). It may be 
asked what made him select for reduction just those two items, 
the breast and palate. The answer to this question can only be 
conjectured ; but what may be said on the subject will be found 
explained in the Third Section (§§ 57 and 67). Of course the 
process here suggested by which the Traditional Recension of 
Susnita's statement on the skeleton w^as constructed is purely 
speculative : it may or may not have so happened ; but to myself 
it appears to possess much prol)ability. 

D. The System of the Vedas 

^ 42. Tlie Statements in the ScUaprMha Brdhmana 

1. It may be useful to present in their entirety those passages 
from the Satapatha Brdhnana to which I have briefly referred in 
some of the preceding paragraphs. They occur in the tenth and 


twelfth sections {kanda) of that work, in the course of describing- 
the erection of the fire-altar. In the building of it, 360 bricks 
were used together with the chanting of hymns consisting of 
a varying number of verses. With these bricks and hymns the 
body and certain of its parts are compared in a mystical \vay. 

2. Total Nnmler of Bones. In the tenth section {^kdmja), fifth 
chapter {adh^dj/a), fourth paragraph {brdhmana), and twelfth 
clause the total number of the bones of the human body is 
compared to the 360 bricks of the fire-altars, as follows^ : 

' But indeed that fire-altar also is the body — the bones are 
the enclosing stones, and there are 360 of these, because there 
are three hundred and sixty bones in man ; the marrow-parts 
are the yajuswati bricks, for there are three hundred and sixty 
of these, and three hundred and sixty parts of maiTow in man.' 
(Vol. iv, p. 387; Original Text in § 99, cl. 1.) 

Again in Section XII, 3, 2, clauses 3 and 4 : 

'There are three himdred and sixty nights in the year and 
three hundred and sixty bones in man ; and these (two) now are 
one and the same ; — there are three hundred and sixty days 
in the year, and three hundred and sixty parts of marrow in 
man, and these (two) now are one and the same. And there 
are seven hundred and twenty days and nights in the year, and 
seven hundred and twenty bones and parts of marrow in man, 
and these (two) now are one and the same.' (Vol. v, p. 169; 
Original Text in § 99, cl. 1.) 

3. Bones compared to Hymns. The number of bones in certain 
parts of the body are compared to certain hymns in Section XII, 
2, 4, clauses 9-14, as follows (Original Text in §99, cl. 3) : 

' (9) The three-versed hymn-form [trivrt) is the head (siras), 
whence that (head) is threefold — skin, bone, and brain. (10) The 
fifteen-versed hymn-form [pancadasa) is the neck-bones i^grlvdli) ; 
for fourteen of these are the transverse processes {kamkara) ; and 
their strength {vlrya) is the fifteenth ; hence by means of them, 
though small, man can bear a heavy load. Therefore the 
fifteen- versed hymn is the neck-bones. (11) The seventeen- 
versed hymn-form {sapfadam) is the breast {nras) ; for there are 
eight costal cartilages {jatrii) on the one side, and eig-ht on the 
other, and the breast-bone [nras, sternum) is the seventeenth. 

' The translations are taken from, or based on, Professor Eggelinjr's 
Translation in the Sacred Books of the East, vols, iv and v. 


Therefore the seventeen-verscd hymn is the breast. (12) The 
twenty-one- versed hymn-form {eJcavimm) is the abdominal portion 
[udara) of the spine. For within tlie abdomen there are twenty 
transverse processes [kuntdpa), and the abdominal portion of the 
spine is the twenty-first. Therefore the twenty-one-versed hymn 
is the abdominal portion of the spine. (13) The thrice-nine- 
versed (or 27-versed) hymn-form {tr'mava) is the two sides 
{julrha). There are thirteen ribs (parh) on the one side, and 
thirteen on the other ; and the two sides make up the thrice-ninth 
(or 27th). Therefore the thrice-ninth hymn is the two sides. 
(14) The thirty -three-versed h3'mn-form {trayastriMa) is the 
thoracic portion {anukci) of the spine ; for there are thirty-two 
transverse processes {Jcarukara) in it, and the thoracic portion of 
the spine is the thirty-third. Therefore, the thirty-three- versed 
hymn is the thoracic portion of the spine.' (Vol. v, pp. 163-5.) 

4. Position of Costal Cartilages. The position of the costal 
cartilages is described in Section VIII, 6, 2, clauses 7 and 10, 
as follows: 

'(1) The fristnhh (metres) are the breast-bone {iiras): he 
(i.e. the sacrificer) places them on the range of the two relahsic 
(bricks), for the retalisic (bricks) are the back-bones {prsti), and 
the back-bones lie over against the breast-bone. (10) The brihatl 
(metres) are the ribs (parsii); the kakuhh (metres) are the thoracic 
vertebrae [kikasa). The hrihat'i he places between the tristubh 
(metres) and kakuhh (metres)^ whence these ribs {parhi) are 
fastened, at either end, to the thoracic vertebrae {kikasa) at the 
back and (interiorly) to the costal cartilages {jatrn) in front.' 
(Vol. iv, p. 114; Original Text in § 99, cl. 4.) 

5. Date of Satapatha Bnlhmana, and its Relation to Cliaraka 
and Snsruta. The traditional author of the Satapatha Brdhviana 
is Yajnavalkya, w^ho is said to have flourished at the court 
of Janaka, the famous king of Videha, and contemporary of 
Ajatasatvu, king of Kasi (Benares). The latter, the celebrated 
ruler of Magadha and Kasi, was a contemporary of Buddha. 
His accession took place approximately in 491 B.C. Accordingly 
Yajnavalkya may be dated about 500 b.c.^ The anatomical 

^ On the dates see Webei''s History of Indian Literature (3rd 
English ed.), pp. 116 fF.; Prof. Eggeling's Translation oftlie S'atajpatlia 
Brahmana in vol. xii of the Sacred Books of the East, Introd., 
pp. XXXV fi.\ Prof. Rhys Davids' Buddhist India, pp. 12-16; 


comparisons, quoted above, show that in his time both the 
medical schools of Atreya and Susruta were in existence, and 
that he possessed some knowledg-e of their respective theories 
on the skeleton. For he derived from Susruta the allotment 
of seventeen bones to the breast (§§ 33, 34), Atreya-Charaka 
counting- only fourteen (§ 4) ; while he g-ot the total of 360 
bones of the skeleton from Atreya, Susruta having" only 300. 
In his choice of particulars from the two systems, of course, 
he was guided by the requirements of his mystic treatment 
of the fire-altar. As to Susruta's surgical text-book, it may be 
noted that Yajnavalkya was a native of Eastern India, and that 
Indian surgical science, in all probability, took its origin in that 
part of India (§ 2, cl. 3). 

6. Acquaintance lolth Smruia. Yajnavalkya's acquaintance 
with the system of Susruta is further shown by the curious 
circumstance that he counts 360 marrow-parts, that is, as 
many as there are bones. Clearly, he believed that every 
bone contained a ' marrow-part '. This belief is closely 
related to Susriita's doctrine, which also ascribes what may 
be called a ' marrow-part ' to every bone. Charaka has left 
no statement on the subject, but Susruta, in the Introduc- 
tory Section [Siltra StJiuna) of his text-book (ch. xiv, verse 6, 
Jiv. ed., p. 48 ; Original Text in § 99, cl. 2), teaches that ' from 
fat (medas) originates bone, and from the latter marrow {majjd) \ 
In the Anatomical Section {Sdrlra StJuma, ch. iv, cl. 9, Jiv., 
p. 319 ; Original Text in § 99, cl. 2), he further states that ' fat 
{medas) occurs in the abdomen, and in both the small and 
large bones of all beings'; and, ihid., cl. 10, he explains that 
' the fat which is found in the interior cavity of the large bones 
is called marrow [majjan), while that which is found in all 
other bones is called bloody {sa-rakta, or red) fat ; further the 
grease {sneha) which attaches to clean flesh (of the abdomen) 
is known as suet (vascl), while in all other conditions fat {medas) 
is simply denoted grease (sne//a) '. In the view of Susruta, 
therefore, all bones contain the same fatty tissue (medas) : only 
it is red in the small bones, and yellow in the large ones, the 

Mr. V. Smith's Early History of India, pp. 2G ff'. ; Messrs. Hoernleand 
Stark's History of India, p. 21. 


latter kind being distinguished as maiTOW {majjcn). The author 
of the SaiapatJia Brdhmana only differs in employing- the term 
majjan in the sense in which Susruta uses the term medas?- 

7. Conftised Count'imj in the Satapatha Brdhnmna. In the 
enumeration of the bones of the trunk, the author of the 
Saiajmtha Brdhmana, not being a medical man, but a theo- 
logian, is rather confused. The items of his count are : 

1 the Neck 

1.5 bones 

„ Breast 

. 17 „ 

„ Lower Spine 21 ) 
Upper Spine 33] 

• 54 „ 
. 27 „ 

Here the first two items are correct, being taken from Atreya- 
Charaka (§ 4) and Susruta (§ 35) respectively. But the numbers 
of the bones of the spine and the ribs, 54 and 27 respectively, are 
very strauge. It almost looks as if they were due to a misreading, 
or false recollection^ reversing the true numbers 45 and 72.- 
The former (i.e. 45) is the total of the bones of the spine in the 
system of Atreya-Charaka (§ 4), while the latter (i.e. 72) is the 
total number of the ribs with their sockets and tubercles in both 
systems, of Atreya as well as of Susruta. 

8. Continvatio7i. But further, the principle of counting is no 
less confused. Susruta counted the bones of the breast on a 
principle different from that on which he counted the bones of 
the neck and back (that is, of the whole spine). The breast he 
counted by taking it to consist of a median bone {sternum), 
giving off an equal number of branch bones (costal cartilages) 

^ It deserves notice that also modern Auatomy distinguishes 
between red and yellow marrow, the latter being found in the 
medullary cavity of the long bones, the red in the cancellous jmrts of 
those bones as well as in all other bones. The red marrow has its 
name from the blood-vessels in it, while the yellow has its name 
from the oil gradually developed in it. The yellow kind is what is 
popularly known as marrow, and which Susruta distioguishes as 
majjan. See Gerrish, Textbook of Anatomy (2nd ed., 1903), pp. 53, 113. 

' Misi'eading would be an obvious solution, if we could assume 
that at the time of the composition of the Satapatha Brdhmana the 
system of numeral notation based on ' the value of position ' was 
already known. With the older system of notation by means of 
distinct signs for the tens and for the units, the theory of misreading 
is far less intelligible. It must, then, be a case of false recollection. 


on either side. But in the spine, he counted each vertebra 
separately without any median column. Atreya-Charaka, less 
correctly, had applied the former method of counting" also to the 
neck (§ 61). In the Satapatha Brdhmana, even more confusedly, 
it is extended to the whole of the spine. The latter is supposed 
to consist of a median column, divided into an upper {anuka) 
and a lower (ndara) portion, either of them g-iving* off an equal 
number of branch bones (transverse processes) on either side. 

9. Continuation. As to the ribs, the very non-anatomical view 
is taken of counting- the collar-bones as a species of ribs, and thus 
obtaining a total of thirteen ribs on either side of the sternum. 
This explanation of the otherwise unintelligible count of thirteen 
ribs has been suggested by Professor Eggeling in his Translation 
of the Satajmtha Brdhmana {Sacred Booh of the East, vol. xliv, 
p. 164, footnote 2), and is undoubtedly correct. The fanciful 
count itself, of course, is due to the mystical exigencies of the 
author of the Satapatha Brdhmana. 

10. Continuation. Finally, another quite non-anatomical pro- 
cedure of the same author is the description of the head (or 
rather, cranium, siras) as consisting of skin, l)onej and brain. 

\ 43. Statement in the Athaiwa Veda 

1, The hymn on the creation of man, which is referred to in 
§ 2, cl. 2, is the second in the tenth book of the Atharva Veda. Its 
composition is traditionally ascribed to a certain sage {rd) Nara- 
yana. This sage is the traditional author also of the famous 
hymn on the sacrifice of man (pnrusa-silhia), which is found 
both in the Rigveda and the Atharva Veda, and is regarded as 
' one of the very latest poems of the Rigvedic age ' — an age 
'which can hardly be less remote than 1000 b.c.'^ It seems 
probable that he is identical with the Narayana, to whom Indian 
medical tradition ascribes the composition of certain very ancient 
medical formulae,- and who, from all these considerations, comes 

' See Rigveda, x. 90, and Atharva Veda, xix. 6 ; Professor Mac- 
donell's Sanskrit Literatxcre, pp. 44, 47, 133. 

^ One formula for the preparation of a medicated oil has the 
very early authority of the Bower MS., Part III, verses 37-53. 
Another formula for preparing a compound powder is recorded in 


within the semi-mythical period of the history of Indian 
medicine (§ 2, cl. 2). 

2. The initial eight verses of the hymn in question run 
as follows^ (Original Text in § 100) : 

Verse 1 . By whom were fixed the two heels of man ? By 
whom was the flesh constructed ? By whom the two ankle- 
bones ; b}^ whom the slender digits ; by whom the apei-tures ; 
by whom the two sets of long bones, in the middle ? Who 
made their bases? 

Verse 2. How did they (the devas) make the two ankle- 
bones of man below% and the two knee-caps above ? The two 
legs, furthermore — how, pray, did they insert (them) ? and the 
two knee-joints — who conceived them ? 

Verse 3. A four-sided (frame) is formed bj^ their ends being 
firmly knit together. Above the two knees (there is) the pliant 
abdomen. The two hips and the two thighs that there are, who 
has created them, (those proj^s) through which the trunk becomes 
so firmly set up ? 

Verse 4. How many devas, and who among them, contributed 
to build up the (bones of the) breast and the (cartilages of the) 
windpipe of man? How many disposed (the ribs of) the two 
breasts ; who, the two shoulder-blades ? How many piled up 
the neck-bones ; how many, the back-bones ? 

Verse 5. Who constructed the two arms of his for the 
exertion of streng-th ? Which deva hoisted the two collar-bones 
on his trunk ? 

Verse 6. Who pierced the seven apertures in the head : the 
two ears, two nostrils, two eyes, the mouth — these (organs of 
sense) in w^iose surpassing might quadrupeds and bipeds walk 
their way in all directions? 

Verse 7. For within the two jaws he fixed the tongue, and 
installed the far-reaching mighty voice. The devas jiervade the 

Madhava's Siddhayoga, ch. xxxvii, verses 18-25 (p. 307), and Dridha- 
bala's complement to the Charaha Samhita, Cikitsita SthCina, cli. xviii, 
verses 122-9 (p. G49, ed. 1895). 

^ Several of the Sanskrit terms, occurring in this hymn, are vei7 
rare. On these and other philological matters my Shidies in Ancient 
Indian Medicine, No. II, in the Journals of the Royal Asiatic Society 
for 1906, pp. 915 ff., and 1907, pp. 1 ff., may be consulted. 


(three) worlds, they dwell in the waters, but which of them 
conceived it ? 

Verse 8. Whoever first constructed that brain of his, the 
broWj the facial bone, the cranium, and the structure of the jaws, 
and having done so, ascended to heaven, who of the many devas 
was he ? 

3. The significance of these verses comes out very clearly, 
when the sj^stem of the bones of the human body disclosed in 
them is compared with the osteological systems of Atreya-Charaka 
and Susruta. The three systems are shown in the subjoined 
Table, the arrangement of which follows the order of the verses 
in the hymn of the Atharva Veda. The systems of Charaka 
and Susruta, in columns V and VI, are quoted from § 7 and § 34 
respectively ; and the bracketed numbers in the columns refer 
to the order of the bones in those paragraphs. 






■ -^-- 



"S? '^ 



% ^ 






-^00 C- e 




^'s -s '£ £: 

Si, 8 &j a^ 

^^8 •? 

8 §.8 ^(M -—^ 

S-'S ^ ~~' « ^ -c: (D 

•s» --—^ "^ 

'^ '8 '=1 7S * " — ^ 

le s -s 'g 's ,§ g 

s; ^ ?-. e 





^ ^T— « 



o> - — 



^ e 


.-^ « 

— ^^se 

— . M o^ 






^ .-H 



i > w 



00 OS ,S 

8 r-H U 

'^ 8 ^TS « 

'g S -S "S -Tti ,g § 

s .^ g ^ 

Q g CO ^ 
'1 -S 'g t. 

~si <e 8* 8 Tg 8 

a, &i 5 -i? c -S^-S^ 

a, « Oi a, 





■~- 8 1^ rAi "Si- •" e 
1 ^ •§ ^ ^ 2- s 

Sis 5-. c ^ s^ a -s^j 

S S 8 ,s 

S^ ■>• '^ 5^ 

C 8 <-. . S 

4s .8 -^ s- w o 

18 « 
^8 "*• 

•a 'e 8 8^ 8 

8 i-S -^ -y >< 

a □ t/2 


S « 

WH 1 


<r^ « 5 >> 



en <o X ^ 

r2 '^ 1^ 2 

3^ Z 


Name of 

C S ^ M 

-H -^ .-t^ -CfJ i -=2 

oj a .-H o o3 f- a> 

> a g <u 

cS O g & 

JH ^ 00 aj « iH 
^^^ CD S W -^ 

0) 1 a S s« 

■J. g a CO ^ 

^ 2 g i '^ ^ 
o oa o o ^-^ 


1-H (M CO Tt< m -J t^ 

00 Ci O r-t 

(M CO Tt< lO 

?£> t^ 00 CTi O 


1-1 1— ( 

1 ( T-H 1 ( T— 1 

I— ( .— 1 ,— 1 1— 1 (M 

.-1 (M 

CO ■* 





4. It will be noticed in the preceding- table that while the 
several items, taken sing-ly, do not follow one another in the 
Atharvic column IV in exactly the same order as in the Charakiyan 
and Susrutiyan columns V and VI, they do so nevertheless, if 
reg*ard is had mainly to their grouping* in the Atharvic verses 
(col. I). The only exception to this rule is the collar-bone 
(No. 16 in col. II), which occupies a rather different place in 
columns V and VI. It is not difficult, however, to see the 
reason of this exception. The Atharvic hymn mentions the 
collar-bone, in verse 5, in connexion with the mention of the 
upper limb {bdhu) which serves to join it to the trunk. 

5. A much more important point to observe is that, as the 
table shows, the system of the Atharva Veda more nearly 
approaches the system of Atreya-Charaka than that of Susruta. 
The only point of ag-reement in the Atharvic and Susrutiyan 
systems is that both content themselves with a brief reference to 
the bones of the upper extremities (as being alike to those of the 
lower extremities), but do not enumerate them separately as the 
Charakiyan system does. This, however, is a merely formal and 
unimportant point. A really important circumstance is that the 
Atharvic system shares with the Charakiyan one of the most 
striking points, in which the latter differs from the system of 
Susruta, namely, the assumption of a central facial bone in the 
structure of the skull (Nos. 17 and 18 in the Table; see also 
§ 11, cl. 5 ; § 13, cl. 4; § 17, cl. 4 ; § 23, cl. 3^^). This is a 
point which will be found fully explained in § 66. It may be 
added that the Atharvic term j)ratisthd for the base of the long- 
bones (No. 5 in the Table) obviously agrees with the Charakiyan 
term adhistlidna, and widely differs from the Susrutiyan kurca. 
The closer agreement of the system of the Atharva Veda with 
that of Atreya-Charaka is nothing more than might have 
been expected from their closer chronological position, as ex- 
plained in § 2, cl. 4. The two circumstances suggest mutual 

6. It also deserves notice that the Atharvic system knows 
only of two bones as constituting the shoulder-girdle — viz. the 
collar-bone (aima, No. 16 in the Table) and the shoulder-blade 
[kap/wda, No. 13). It thus serves to confirm the correctnes^s 



of oinittiiig- the item aihsa from the osteological summary 
of Charaka (§ 6, and § .25, Note). The two systems, of the 
Atharva Veda and Atreya-Charaka, being" in other respects 
in such close ag-reement, it becomes increasingly probable that 
the latter system likewise knew only of two bones in the shoulder, 
viz. the collar-bone {a/csaka, No. 17 in § 7) and the shoulder-blade 
{cnma-phalaka. No. 16, ibid.). 


§ 44. Preliminai'y Remarks 

1. Before proceeding" to the detailed identification of the 
bones which, according' to the early Indian anatomists, compose 
the human skeleton, it may be iiseful to note the following- 
preliminary j)oints. 

2. According- to modern Anatomy, there are about 200 bones 
in the adult human skeleton.^ The early Indian anatomists, 
on the other hand, count either 360 (Atreya) or 300 (Susruta) 
bones. This larg-e excess is principally due to the fact that 
(besides inckiding the teeth, nails, and cartilag-es) they counted 
prominent parts of bones, such as are now known as ' processes ' 
or ' protuberances ', as if they were separate bones. Their reasons 
for counting in this manner were mainly three. 

3. Sometimes processes, or protuberances, of bones were 
popularly known by special names, and regarded as special bones. 
Examples are the malleoli, or ankle-bones, and the styloid 
processes, or wrist-bones. In such cases it was probably a mere 
concession, made by the early Indian anatomists, to popular 
iisage that they enumerated them in their lists as separate 
bones. In other cases the separate enumeration of processes 
or protuberances was due to an exaggerated regard for the 
homological principle. For example the right and left halves 
of the skeleton were regarded as homologous. Hence, seeing 
that the vertebral column lay in the median line, the transverse 
processes on the right and left of the several vertebrae were 
counted as separate homolog'ous bones (§ 59). Sometimes, ag-ain, 
it was a fancy for artificial symmetry which led to the 
multiplication of bones. To this cause, probal)ly, is due the 

* See Dr. Gerrish's Textbook of Anatomy, p. 113. 

T 2 


assumption of the existence of a third joint in the thumb and 
great toe (§ 47), and of twelve costal tubercles instead of ten 
(§ 58). 

4, All these cases are examples of the multiplication of bones ; 
but the opposite process of unification also occurs. Here a number 
of bones is counted as a sing-Ie bone, either from deference to an 
older or popular theory, or because they were thoug-ht to constitute 
a peculiar unity. Conspicuous examples are the bones of the 
carpus and tarsus (§ 49), and, in Snsruta's system, the ankle- 
bones (§ 52). 

§ 45. The Practice of Dissection 

1. Allowing for the modifying* causes explained in the preceding 
paragraph, the views of the early Indian anatomists are sur- 
prisingly accurate. This is due to the fact that they were 
accustomed to the practice of jireparing' the dead human body 
for actual examination, and that, therefore, theii- views were the 
direct result of an experimental knowledge of the skeleton. It is 
true that the Compendium of Charaka contains no reference 
whatever to the practice of human dissection ; and it must, 
therefore, remain doubtful whether, and to what extent, that 
practice was observed in the school of Atreya. But there can be 
no doubt as to the practice being known and observed in the 
school of Susruta ; for his Compendium contains a passage which 
gives detailed instructions regarding the procedure to be adopted 
in preparing a dead body for anatomical examination. 

2. The passage in question occurs at the end of the fifth 
chapter of the Anatomical Section (Sdr'tm SfMua) of the 
Compendium, and runs as follows : 

' No accurate account of any part of the body, including even 
its skin, can be rendered without a knowledge of anatomy. 
Hence any one who wishes to acquire a thorough knowledge 
of anatomy must 2)rep)are a dead body, and carefully examine all 
its parts. For it is only by combining both direct ocular 
observation and the information of text-books that thorough 
knowledge is obtained. For this purpose one should select 
a body which is complete in all its parts. It should also be 
the bod}- of a person who was not excessively old, nor who died 


of poison or of a protracted disease. Having- removed all 
excrementitious matter from the entrails, the body should be 
wrapped in rush, or bast, or g-rass, or hemp, and placed in a cage. 
Having firmly secured the latter, in a hidden spot, in a river 
with no strong" current, the body should be allowed to decompose. 
After an interval of seven days the thoroughly decomposed body 
should be taken out, and very slowly scrubbed with a whisk 
made of grass-roots, or hair, or bamboo, or bast. At the same 
time, every part of the body, great or small, external and internal, 
beginning with the skin, should be examined with the eye, one 
after the other, as it becomes disclosed in the course of the 
process of scrubbing.' (Original Text in § 95.^) 

3. The procedure, thus described, will doubtlessly enable the 
observer to recognize such structures as the clusters [kurca) 
of small bones which make up the carpus and tarsus. But it 
would hardly suffice to enable him to discover bones lying 
interiorly; such, for example, as the ethmoid, sphenoid, vomer, 
and others in the interior of the head. As a matter of fact, 
we do not find these latter bones mentioned even in the more 
accurate list of Susruta. 

^ 46. Conspectus of the Ancient Indian and Modern 


1. The subjoined comparative table, setting side by side the 
system of Modern Anatomy and the systems of Atreya-Charaka 
and Susruta, as well as the skeleton shown in Figs. 4 and 5, may 
serve as a guide to the detailed identification of bones discussed 
in the succeeding paragraphs. Column I on Modern Anatomy is 
based on Dr. Samuel O. L. Potter's Commend of Human Anatomy 
(5th ed., 1893), pp. 9, 10 ; column II on §§ 4, 7 ; and column III 
on § 34. 

^ A German translation is given in Professor .Jolly's Indian 
Medicine, pp. 44, 45, in the Cyclopedia of ludo-Aryan Reseaicli. 
See also Dr. Wise's Hindu System of Medicine {new issue), pp. 68, 69. 




I. Potter. 

II. Charaka. 

III. Susruta 



A. Four Extremities. 


1 Phalanges, or 


joints of fin- 



gers and toes 







2 Metacarpus and 


Long bones 







3 Carpus and tar- 

sus, Clusters, 

or Bases 







4 Os calcis, beel 






5 Forearm (Ra- 

dius, Ulna) 







6 Styloid pro- 

cesses, wrist- 







7 Olecranon, el- 







8 Leg (tibia and 








9 ]\lalleoli, 







10 Patella, knee- 








1 1 Arm (humerus) 







1 2 Thigh (femur) 









B. Trunk 


Shoulder : 

13 Clavicle, col- 







§55 ■ 

1 4 Scapula, 


shoulder-blade 2 





§56 1 

1 5 Thorax : Eibs 


parsvaka, &c. 


parsvaka, &c. 


§58 * 

1 6 Sternum, 








1 7 Vertebrae, thora- 

cic and lumbar 17 





18 Pelvis: Sacrum 






1 9 Coccyx 





20 Ilium, is- \ 








21 Pubes 










I. Potter. 

IT. Charak 


III. Susruta. 

C. Head and 


22 Cervix: 


Neck- bones 7 






23 Trachea, bron- 

chi, wind- 







24 Cranium, 

Frontal") [pan- 1 

Parietal ■ - shaped 2 






Occipital (bones 1 


Si^henoid 1 

Ethmoid 1 

25 Temporal 2 






26 Face : 



•jaws 2 

Inferior do. J 


hanu, hanumu 

la 3 





ridges, brows 


§ 66 

27 Malar 2 






28 Nasal 2 





29 Palate bones 2 





§ 67 

Lachrymal 2 

Inferior tur- 

binated 2 

Vomer 1 

Hyoid 1 

30 Additional : 







Sockets of teeth 



§ 68 




§ 69 









Total : 30 



Grand tota^ 

: 200 




Eyeball, Aksikosa- 
Cheekbone, GandakiUa 

Ribs, Puysvaia^ 


Cranial Bone, 'Siralikapala 
Superciliary Ridge, I.atafa 

Temporal Bone, 'Sahkha 
Nasal Bone, Naiika 

Ramus, Haninn^tla-daudhA/m 
Jawbone, Hajiu 

Collarbone, Aksaka, Amsa 

Breastbone, Ura 

Pelvis, 'Sroii 

Hipbone, 'Sro>,iipha!aka, 

oij.iplialakil, 1 
jVitanilya ] 

Sacrum, Trika 
Coccyx, Guiia 

Pubic Arch, BJiaga 

Astragalus, Kuixa-sirn 

Metatarsus, CSVz/a^a, TaU 
Phalanges, Afigitli 
Nails, Xakha 

Fio. 4. Human Skeleton. Asiln-ums.raluu Front View, 




Cranial Bones, ^SirahkapaU 

Har, Karna 

Vertebral Column, Prstlurvamsa 

Acromion Process, Amsakuta 
Shoulderblade, Aiiisajihalaka 

Arm, Ba/til-oia^aka 
Olecranon Process, ICicrpara, Kafdtika 

Forearm, Aratiii •C'^'"^' 

Styloid Processes, Manika 

Carpus, Aif/iisfhana, Kurca 
Metacarpus, 'SalSkd, Tah 
Phalanges, Angui. 

Nails. \^akha- 

Leg, yau^hn 

Malleoli, Ctilpha 

Fig. .5. Human Skeleton. Aslhi-.savigmha. Back Mew. 




A. The Four Extremities 

§ 47. The Phalanges 

Pdni-pdd-d'hguli, or phalanges of the hands and feet. Both 
Atreya-Charaka and Susruta count sixty of these phalang-es, 

Fig. 6. 
Outlines of the Hand. 


1-8. Carpus, Kurca. 

1. Scaphoid 

2. Semilunar 

3. Cuneiform. 

4. Pisiform. 
J. Unciform. 

6. Os magnum. 

7. Trapezoid. 

8. Trapezium. 
I-V. Metacarpus, Suldka. 
a-c. Phalanges, Anguli. 

S. S. Styloid Processes, Manika. 

Fig. 7. 
Outlines of the Foot. 

1-7. Tarsus, Knrca. 

1. Os calcis. Par mi. 

2. Astragalus, Kurca-siras. 

3. Navicular. 

4. Cuboid. 

5. External cuneiform. 
(). Middle 

7. Internal ,, 

I-V. Metatarsus, Saldka. 
a-c. Phalanges, AiiguU. 
M. M. Malleoli, aulpha. 

giving three to each finger and toe. The actual number is only 
fifty-six, there being in reality only two phalanges in the thumb 
Professor Pancoast, however, counts fifteen 

and great toe 

§ 48] THE LONG BONES 123 

phalanges in either hand, classing the first metacarpal bone 
among the phalanges of the thumb/ and thus making the total 
of the phalanges to be fifty-eight. He would seem to consider 
the trapezium (Fig. 6), one of the carpal bones with which 
the first metacarpal articulates, to be the real metacarpal of the 
thumb, and the real homologue of the metacarpals of the other 
four fingers. According to the usual view the clusters of carpal 
and tarsal bones contain eight and seven bones respectively. 
Professor Pancoast's theory would equalize their numbers by the 
exclusion of the trapezium. It is interesting to observe that 
Chakrapanidatta's somewhat obscure remarks on the phalang-es 
seem to indicate his having held a similar view. For he says 
(§ 11) : 'As to the third joint of the thumb and great toe, it must 
be understood to be contained within the respective hand or 
foot,' that is, within the palm or sole or, in other words, among 
the metacarpal or metatarsal bones. And he adds : ' The long 
bones belonging to the thumb and great toe are also of small 
size ' ; that is, he appears to have identified the trapezium as 
the first metacarpal, and the internal cuneiform bone of the 
tarsus (Fig. 7) as the first metatarsal. How far the explanation 
of Chakrapfmidatta may be the survival of an ancient tradition 
going back to the time of Atreya and Susruta, it is, at present, 
impossible to say. But on the whole it seems more probable 
that the reckoning of sixty phalanges by the ancient Indian 
anatomists is based on fancied claims of symmetry (§ 44). 

§ 48. TJie Loiuj Bones 

1. Pdni-2)dda-mldkd, or the long bones of the hands and feet. 
These are the metacarpal and metatarsal bones. Charaka counts 
twenty of them, five in either hand and foot (§ 4), which agrees 
with the actual number. Susruta, in his list (§ 27), aggregates 
them under the term lata, which signifies the palmar and plantar 
portion of the hand and foot respectively. The Atharva Veda 
(§ 43) denotes that portion by the term vchlakka. 

2. It may here be useful to note that the combined term 
fala-kvrca-gulpha, sole- cluster-ankle, employed by Susruta in his 

^ Dr. Potter's Compend of Human Anatomy, pp. 49, 50. 


list (§ 88) denotes the whole (roughly rectang'ular) portion of 
the foot and hand, as shown in Fig-s. 6 and 7, exclusive of the 
phalanges. That is to say, it signifies the metatarsus {tala), 
tarsus {km-ca)y and malleoli {gulpha) of the foot, and similarly 
the metacarpus {tala), carpus (kurca), and styloid processes 
{manihandha) of the hand. 

^49. Bases or Clusters 

1. F(7ni-pdda-ml(ik-ddhisthdna, base (prop) of the long bones 
of the hand and foot ; or simply stJidna or pratisthd, base ; or 
kurca, cluster (of bones). The first-mentioned term occurs in the 
lists of Charaka (§ 4) and Bheda (§ 12) ; the second and third in 
the lists (non-medical) of Yajnavalkya (§ 16) and the Atharva 
Veda (§ 43) respectively ; the fourth in the list of Susruta. 
See Figs. 6 and 7. 

2. Atreya, whose system is rej)orted by Charaka and Bheda, 
appears to have held the opinion that the long bones (metacarpals 
and metatarsals) were fixed in one bone as their common base. 
He may have known that this base (the carpus, or tarsus) was 
really composed of a cluster of small bones, but the term adhi- 
sthdna (or stiidna) which he chose as its name, rather suggests 
that he thought it to be a single undivided bone. Actual 
examination of a prepared skeleton, such as Susruta certainly 
practised (§ 45), would, of course, have set him right ; but it may 
be doubted whether he ever went be^^ond a superficial examination 
of a dead body. 

3. Susruta's use of the term kurca, cluster, which he substitutes 
for adhisfhdna, base, is by itself suflficient to show that he was 
aware of the true nature of the ' base ', as being- made up of 
a cluster of small bones. It is not improbable that he knew 
even the exact number of the small bones which constitute each 
cluster (eight in the carpus and seven in the tarsus), but, so far 
as I know, there is no passage in his Compendium which 
definitely proves it. Rather inconsistently, but probably in 
deference to the older view, he continued, for the purpose of his 
list, to count his ' cluster ' as one bone. But of course, properly 


interpreted, this ooly means that he counted the 'cluster' as 
a composite bone, or rather as a set of bones. 

4. The identity of the organ which Susruta calls kurca, cluster, 
may also be inferred from a passage in which he describes 
its position in the limb. In the sixth chapter of the Anatomical 
Section {Sdrira Stiifma), explaining his doctrine of the ' vital 
spots ' {?narman), he says : 

' Between the great toe and the toe next to it, there lies the 
vital spot called hipra. Upwards of this hipra, both ways 
(i.e. exteriorly and interiorly), there lies the vital spot called 
Jkilrca: (Original Text in § 97, cl. 1.) 

Referring to Fig. 7, it will be seen that Susruta's Mrca, or 
cluster (of bones), lies on the exterior and interior sides of the 
foot, beyond the great and second toes. As a matter of fact, 
the seven bones of the tarsal cluster are in modern Anatomy 
considered as ' placed in two rows, side by side, two bones in 
the external row, five in the internal, as follows : externally, 
OS calcis (No. 1), and cuboid (No. 4) ; internally, astragalus 
(No. 2), scaphoid or navicular (No. 3), and the three cuneiform 
(Nos. 5, 6, 7).' 3Iutatis mutandis these remarks apply also to 
the carpal cluster. The eight bones of that cluster are now 
usually considered as ' placed in two rows, one in front of the 
other, with four bones in each row'.^ But they may also be 
considered as placed (Fig. 6) in two rows, side by side, four bones 
externally (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, unciform, pisiform, cuneiform, os 
magnum) ; and four internally (Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, scaphoid, semilunar, 
trapezoid, trapezium). 

5. The only difficulty about Susruta's kurca, or cluster, arises 
from the fact that the Traditional Recension of his statement 
on the skeleton (§ 27) ascribes to him, by implication, the 
doctrine that there are eight kurca, or clusters, in the four 
extremities, two in either hand and two in either foot. It has 
been shown, however, in § 31, that this is a complete error, 
foisted into the system of Susruta, in all probability, from 
the system of Yagbhata I (§ 37, also pp. 99, 103). The true 
doctrine of Susruta, stated by himself in explicit terms (§ 31), 

^ See Dr. Potter's Oomjpend of Human Anatami/, pp. 48 and 53. 


knows only four kvrca^ or clusters, one in either hand, i.e. the 
carpus, and one in either foot, i.e. the tarsus. 

6. It might be thought that ^"agbhata I derived his doctrine 
that there are eight kurca, two in either hand and two in either 
foot, from the circumstance, above referred to, that the small 
bones of the carpi and tarsi are placed in two rows. One would 
thus obtain eight rows of small bones, two in either hand and 
two in either foot ; and it might be thought that Yagbhata I 
wanted to express that circumstance by his count of eight kurca, 
or rows. In support of this view it might be said that 
Yagbhata I also counts four gv.lpha, or ankle-bones, as well as 
four manibandha, or wrist-bones (§ 37). Seeing that there are 
actually two malleoli (or ankle-bones) in either leg, and two 
styloid processes (or wrist-bones) in either forearm, it seems 
a very plausible conclusion that Yagbhata I was really thinking 
of the four malleoli and four styloid processes when in his list 
of bones he enumerates four gidplia and four manibandha ; and 
similarly that he was thinking of the eight rows of small bones 
in the two carpi and tarsi, when he counted eight kurca. But 
such a view would credit Yagbhata I with more consistency 
and more accurate knowledge of anatomy than he really 
possessed. How little of both qualities his statement on the 
skeleton exhibits has been already shown in § 38. A striking 
proof of his imperfect knowledge of the skeleton is the 
circumstance that in his list (§ 37) he enumerates both adld- 
stJidna and kurca as two distinct kinds of bone. By the former 
he understood the carpus and tarsus. This is clear from the 
term iwat'ihandhoka, or interlocker, by which he calls them. 
He says : ' There are five long bones, and one bone interlocking 
them ' (Original Text in § 93). This shows that (whatever 
Atreya-Charaka's view of the real nature oi ad hist ha. no, may have 
been) Yagbhata I took it to be a single undivided bone, on which 
the five long bones articulated. But as he had thus provided 
for the carpus and tarsus, it is difficult to understand what he 
could have imagined the additional kurca to be. Seeing that all 
actually existing bones (Figs. 6 and 7), phalanges, metacarj)us 
(or metatarsus), carpus (or tarsus), and styloid processes (or 
malleoli) were already covered by the terms angidi, suldkd, 


pratihandhaka (or adJiistlulna), and manihand/ia (or gulpha)^ there 
was no bone left to be named kiirca. It may be doubted whether 
Vagbhata I had any idea as to what the Siisrutiyan term kurca 
meant. He certainly failed to see that it signified the equivalent 
of the Charakiyan term adhisthdna ; and his anatomical knowledge 
was too imperfect to prevent that failure. It thus came to pass 
that, dominated by his desire of combining the two sj^stems 
of Susruta and Charaka, he not only sujjerfluously counted the 
kiirca, by the side of his pratihand/iaka (Charaka's adhisthdna), 
but actually duplicated its numbers, counting eight kurca instead 
of four. 

7. In connexion with the cluster of bones {kurca) it may 
be well to discuss the case of a bone which is not especially 
enumerated in the list of Susruta, but which he mentions in the 
sixth chapter of his Anatomical Section [Sdrfra Sf/uhia), in 
discussing the ' vital spots ' {rnarman). It is there named by 
him kurca-firas, or head of the cluster, that is, head-bone within 
the cluster. He defines its position as follows : 

' Below the ankle-joint, but not on both sides, there lies what 
is called the head of the cluster.' (Original Text in § 97, cl. 1.) 

By referring to Fig, 7, it will be seen at once that the bone 
here described as the head of the cluster is the astragalus (No. 2). 
It forms the lower part of the ankle-joint, and lies below the 
distal ends of the tibia and fibula with both of which it 
articulates. In the list of Susruta (§ 27) it is not specially 
enumerated, because, of course, it is included in the cluster 
[kurca] of which it merely forms the head-bone. But in his 
chapter on the ' vital spots ' it had to be mentioned sepa- 
rately by the side of the cluster, on account of its being the 
location of a particularly dangerous spot, in addition to another 
dangerous spot located in the remainder of the cluster (Nos. 3, 4, 
5, 6). The astragalus (No. 2) and the os calcis (No. 1) are the 
two largest bones of the tarsal cluster, and Susruta distinguishes 
them by the names ' head of the cluster ' {kurca-slras) and ' heel ' 
[pdrsni) respectively. That fact definitely proves that he was 
aware of the real nature of the tarsus as being composed of 
a cluster [kurca) of bones. Atreya-Charaka, on the other hand. 


knew nothing" of a head of the cluster, and his heel {pdrsni), 
as we shall see in the next paragraph, is merely the projecting 
tuberosity of the os caleis. With him both the astragalus and 
the OS caleis are included in his adJiisthdna, or base, and there 
is nothing- to prove definitely that he knew anything of the real 
composite nature of the organ which he called aclhisthdna. 

8. It should be mentioned that Susnita teaches the existence 
of four kurca-Hms, or heads of clusters. He says : 

' There are two ankles, two wrists, and two pairs of cluster- 
heads. These eight an experienced surgeon should know to be 
vital spots that are apt to cause diseases.' (Original Text in 
§ 96, cl. 6.) 

What Susruta means is, of course, that there is a head-bone 
in each of the four clusters {kurca), that is, in either of the two 
carpi and tarsi. The head-bones of the two tarsi are their 
respective astragali. Those of the two carpi would appear to be 
their respective semilunar bones (No. 2 in Fig. 6). Charaka 
(i.e. Atreva), as has been already indicated, does not mention 
the existence of any of these four head-bones. 

$ 50. Tlie Heel 

Fdrmi, or the heel. See Fig. 7. This term, as used by 
Charaka, denotes the backward and downward projection of the 
OS caleis, that is, that portion of it which can be superficially 
seen and felt, and is popularly known as the heel. Accordingly, 
in Atreya's statement of the skeleton, as reported by Charaka 
and Bheda (§§ 4, 12), the number of heels is rightly said to be 
two. In the list of Vagbhata I (§ 37), rather grotesquely a heel 
is ascribed to each of the four extremities, two in the feet and 
two in the hands, giving a total of four heels. The reason of 
this incongruous conception has been explained in § 32. It 
arose from a false construction of Susruta's direction regarding 
the method of counting the bones of the four extremities, and it 
actually succeeded, probably on the authority of Vagbhata I 
himself, in beino- received into the Traditional Recension of 
Susruta's statement on the skeleton (§ 27). There can hardly 
be any doubt that the statement of Susruta, in its original and 

§ 51] rOREAEM AND LEG 129 

genuine form, taught no more than two heels. From the 
sreneral tenor of it, it is evident that Susruta knew the true 
nature of the tarsus ; namely, that it is a cluster (hlrca) of small 
bones. The two largest of these small bones he distinguished 
by special names ; namely, the astralagus (No. 2) by kurca-siras, 
or head of the cluster {§ 49), and the os calcis (No. 2), by pdrpii, 
or heel. In his detailed list of the bones (§ 27) he did not 
enumerate the ' head of the cluster ' separately ; for of course it 
was implicitly included in the term ' cluster ' (Mrca). But the 
heel (pdrsni) he counted separately, either as a concession to the 
older system of Atreya, and to popular usage, or, perhaps on the 
whole more probably, because he did not consider the os calcis as 
constituting one of the component bones of the cluster {kurca). 
In all probability Susruta's real view of the lower portion of the 
lower extremity (the portion shown in Fig. 7) was that it was 
formed by five constituents : 1, phalanges {anguli) ; 2, metatarsals 
{tala or mldkd) ; 3, tarsal cluster {kurca) of six small bones 
(Nos. 2-7 ; 4, ankles [gtdpha) ; and 5, os calcis or heel-bone 
[pdrsni^ No. 1). The view of Atreya-Charaka differed from the 
view of Susruta only in considering the tarsus to consist, not of 
a cluster of bones, but of a single, undivided supporting bone 
{adliisthdna), which included the body of the os calcis, but 
excluded its posterior downward projection, the latter being 
counted separately and named pdrsni. In § 65 it will be shown 
that there exists a similar difference of opinion with respect to 
the term hami between Susruta and Atreya-Charaka. The 
former uses it as denoting the whole lower jaw-bone (inferior 
maxillary), while with Atreya it denotes its (roughly) triangular 
' mental protuberance,' popularly known as the chin (Fig. 31). 

\ 51. Forearm and Leg 

Aratni or prahdhu, forearm, and jangka, leg. The term 
prahdJiu occurs only in certain manuscripts of the Vishnu 
Smriti (see § 84). In all the three statements, of Atreya (that 
is, Charaka and Bheda, §§ 4, 1 2), Susruta (§ 27), and Vagbhata I, 
(§ 37) these two organs are correctly described as consisting of 
two bones each — viz. the radius and ulna in the forearm, and 





the tibia and fibula in the leg-. In the Atharva Veda (verse 3 in 
§ 43) the figure made by the two bones of the leg- is appropriately 
described as ' a four-sided frame having its ends firmly knit 
together ' ; and this description of course is intended also to 
apply to the bones of the forearm. See Figs. 8 and 9. 

Fig. 8. 

Forearm, Aratni. 

a. Radius. 
h. Ulna, 
c, c. Styloid processes, Manika. 
d. Olecranon process, Kapdlikd. 

Fig. 9. 

Leg, Jangha. 

a. Tibia. 
h. Fibula. 
c, c. Malleoli, Gulpha. 

§52. Ankles and Wrists 

Manika or manibaudha, wrist-bone, and gnlj)ha, ankle-bone. 
See Figs. 6 and 7. In literary Sanskrit these terms denote the 
w^rist-joint and ankle-joint respectively ; but as anatomical terms 
they signify more precisely the wrist-bones and ankle-bones, that 
is, the distal processes of the two bones of the forearm and leg' 
which are known respectively as the styloid processes and the 


malleoli. By the ancient Indian anatomists, according" to their 
peculiar method (§ 44, cl. 3), they are reckoned as separate bones ; 
but while Atreya counts them all singly, and thus in the list, 
reported by Charaka (§ 7), enumerates four wrist-bones and four 
ankle-bones, Susruta counts them by pairs, and thus in his list 
(§34), has only two wrist-bones and two ankle-bones, one in 
each forearm, and one in each leg. The Traditional Recension, 
of the list of Charaka (§ 4), it is true, counts only two wrist-bones ; 
but it has been shown in §§ 6 and 25 (p. 67) that the original and 
genuine list (§ 7) must have contained four wrist-bones. On the 
other hand, the Traditional Recension of Susruta's list (§ 27) 
gives four wrist-bones and four ankle-bones. This, as shown in 
§§31, 41, is also an error, due to the influence of Vagbhata I 
(§ 37), who, in pursuance of his aim of combining and harmonizing 
the two systems of Charaka and Susruta, adopted Charaka's way 
of counting the wrist-bones and ankle-bones. 

2. The truth regarding the way in which Susruta contem- 
plated the styloid processes and malleoli is clearly brought out 
by the term valaya, wristlet or anklet, which he applies to them 
(§ 30). It is obvious from this comparison that he looked upon 
each pair of styloid processes and malleoli as forming but a 
single composite bone encircling" the lower part of the forearm, 
or leg, like a wristlet, or anklet (see Fig. 2, p. 80). It must be 
admitted that this is a rather fanciful way of treating those 
organs. At the same time, it is quite consistent with Susruta's 
methods ; he treats the carpus and tarsus in exactly the same 
way. For him both are single, composite bones, or clusters 
(Mrca) as he calls them (§ 49). For the purpose of enumeration 
in the list of bones, the clusters, though consisting of a number 
of small bones, are reckoned each as a single bone, or — it would 
be better to say — as a single system of bones. Similarly, the 
pairi of styloid processes and malleoli are counted, in the list, 
each as a single bone, or rather as a single system of bones. 

§ 53. Elbow-pan and Knee-cap 

1. Kapdiikd or y?;«r/?ara, elbow-pan, andy«/»/ oxjdnuka,\inee-Ci\^. 
There can be no doubt regarding the bones to which these terms 

K a 




refer. They are the olecranon process of the elbow, and the patella 
of the knee. The former, which ' in its function and structure 
resembles the patella V is not a separate bone, but a process of 
the ulna (Fig*. 8). But by the ancient Indian anatomists, 
according to their usual practice (§ 44), it is counted as a separate 
bone. They follow herein our own popular usage which speaks 
of it as the ' funny bone ' or ' crazy bone '. 

2. The term hurpara is peculiar t-o Susruta, who expressly 
defines it as denoting the homologue ofy««M, the knee-cap (p. 72), 
and who may, therefore, have been the first to use it as a denota- 
tion of the olecranon process. The term kapdllka is peculiar to 
Atreya (Charaka and Bheda). It means, literally, a small shallow 
dish, and is therefore identical in meaning with patella, the Latin 

name of the knee-cap. It well describes 
the appearance of the olecranon process, 
which presents, in the ventral view, 
a concave surface, the so-called great 
sigmoid cavity (Fig. 8). Accordingly, 
in this treatise, it has been rendered by 
* elbow-pan '. 

3. The term hapola, for the elbow- 
pan, which is found in the Non- 
medical Version (§ 16), is undoubtedly, 
as has been explained in § 19, cl. 4, 
an ancient misreading for kapdla, pan, 
of which kapdlikd is a diminutive. By 
way of corroboration it may be mentioned that the Smaller 
Petersburg Dictionary quotes the form kajwlaka as a mis- 
reading for kapdlaka, pan. The antiquity of the misreading 
may be seen from the fact that ancient Sanskrit dictionaries 
mention kapoli^ with the meaning knee-cap. The true form, of 
course, is kapdll, a feminine diminutive of kajmla, meaning a 
small pan, or any small pan-like bone, such as the knee-cap or 
elbow-pan. Similarly, kapdla itself is used to denote the larger 
pan-shaped bones of the cranium (§63). 

4. The Atharva Vedic list (§ 43) has the two synonymous 

Fig. 10. 

The Patella, Jdnu. 

From the back, showing 
interior concave surface. 

^ Dr. Potter's Compend of Human Anatomy, p. 47. 



terms Jdmi and asthlvat. The latter literally means ' the org-an 
(knee) which possesses a bone (patella) ', and thus, like jdnu, 
comes to denote specifically the knee-cap. 

\ 54. Arms mid Thighs 

Baku, arm, and ur^i, thig-h. These two terms are employed by 
Susruta (§ 27) and Vag-bhata I (§ 37). Charaka uses the fuller 
terms hdhu-7ialaka, reed-like or hollow bone of the arm, and uru- 
nalaka, reed-like, or hollow bone of the thig-h (§ 4). All three 
correctly ascribe to either organ a cylindrical bone, the humerus 
and the femur respectively, with a hollow shaft, the so-called 
medullary cavity. See Figs. 4 and 5. 

B. The Trunk 

^ 55. The Clavicle or Collar-hone 

1. Ahaka or aksa, also aihsa or amsaka, clavicle or collar-bone 
(Fig. 11). All three writers^ Atreya-Charaka, Susruta, and Vag- 
bhata I, in their lists (§§ 4, 27 , 37), correctly state the number 
of these bones to be two. 

Fig. 11. 
The Right Clavicle, Aksaka. 

a. Shaft. 

b. Sternal end. 

c. Acromial end. 

2. The first-named term, aksaka, is the strictly technical 
denotation of the collar-bone. It is uniformly explained by 
the commentators to have that meaning*. Thus Dallana, in 
his commentary on the thirty-fourth and forty-eighth verses of 
the third chapter of the Therapeutical Section {Cilcitsita St/tdna) 
of the Compendium of Susruta, explains it by saying-: 'The 
akmka is located above the shoulder-joint,' and ag-ain, ' The akmka 




is the part above the shoulder-joint ' (Original Texts in § 97, el. 2). 
Similarly Gangadhar, in his commentary on Charaka's skeletal 
statement, says: 'The two aksaka are the two shouldei'-bones 
{ammka) which lie below the throat ' (Original Text in § 97, cl. 2). 
But the matter is clinched by Chakrapanidatta, who (§11, 
p. 36) very aptly likens the two aksaka to two kllaka or ' pegs 
that run athwart the anterior part of the trunk '. Referring to 
Figures 4 and 12, it will be seen that the external end of the 

Fig. 12. 
Diagram of Right Half of Shoulder-girdle. 

Ventral view showing— Clavicle, Aksaka, above. 

Scapula, Amsa-phalaka, below (shaded), 
with a. Coracoid process. 

6. Acromion process, Amsa-kuta. 
c. Glenoid cavity, Amsa-pTiha. 

clavicle lies exactly above the shoulder-joint, and its internal 
end below the throat, while the whole clavicle runs, like a peg, 
across from the throat to the shoulder-joint. 

3. In the shorter form aksa, the term occurs only in the 
Non-medical Version of the system of Atreya (§ 16),' where, 
however, as stated in § 20, cl. 4, it is wrongly explained by the 

^ It also occurs in i\\Q S^utajpatha Br ahmana \ see Monier ^Yilliams's 
Dictionary, 2ud ed. 

§ 55] THE COLLAR-BONE 135 

commentators of the Law-book of Yajnavalkya to signify *a bone 
on tbe edge of the eye \ or, ' a bone between the eye and the ear.' 
And this unintelligent guess at the meaning o^ aksa was copied 
from them by Nanda Pandita, in his Commentary on the 
Institutes of Vishnu, where he says that the term means ' the 
part below the temples, between the ear and the eye '} In 
medical works the term never occurs with that meaning. The 
only other way in which I have noticed it used in a medical 
work is as a synonym of indrhja, or organ of sense. With this 
meaning it occurs not unfrequently in the Compendium of 
Vagbhata II (e.g. Sxdra Sthdna, chap. I, verse 33; X. 2 ; 
XII. 17 ; Sdrlra Stiidna, III. 5), where the commentator ex- 
pressly says that Hhe organs of sense are called aksa^ [akmni 
indrii/dni ticyante). It may be noted, however, that Vagbhata I, 
in his Summary, in the corresponding passages never uses the 
term akm^ but always indriya (Siifra Sthdna, chap. XIX, vol. I, 
p. 96, 1. 21 ; XIX, p. 106, 1. 16; Sdrlra Sthdna, chap. V, p. 220, 
1. 8).2 

4. As to aima, it is properly an indefinite term, denoting the 
shoulder-girdle generally. But in the Compendium of Susruta 
it is frequently used as a synonym of aksaka to denote the 
collar-bone, as distinguished from amsa-phalaka, which denotes 
the shoulder-blade or scapula. This usage is explicitly explained 
in a passage in the sixth chapter of the Anatomical Section 
(Sdrlra Sthdna), where Susruta defines the names and positions 
of those two parts of the shoulder-girdle. He says : 

' In the upper part of the back, and on both sides of the 
vertebral column, there lie what are called the shoulder-blades 
(amsa-phalaka), being of triangular form (trika-sambaddha) . Be- 

' Curiously enough, in the exact position indicated by Nanda 
Pandita, there is a small elongated bone, called the Zygomatic Process 
(see'Pigs. 211, 239, on pp. 184, 204, of Dr. Gerrish's Textbook of 
Anatomy, 2nd ed., 1903). But, even granting the improbable 
assumption that this process was known to the legal commentators, 
the explanation is out of place, because aksa is enumerated, not 
among the bones of the head, but among those of the trunk. 

* It is this meaning of aksa, which appears to have suggested to 
Apararka the interpretation of akm-tatutaka, tis 'edge of the eyo ', 
see p. 55, footnote 1. 


tween the head of the arms and the neck there lie what are 
called the collar-bones (amsa), connecting the shoulder-seat {aihsa- 
pltJta, i.e. the glenoid cavity) ^ with the nape of the neck. 
(Original Text in § 97, cl. 3.) 

In another passage in the same sixth chapter, in which 
Susruta describes the forty-four 'vital spots which cause 
weakness ' [valkalya-kamni marmdni), he enumerates (Original 
Text in § 97, cl. 4) among their number the two amsa or collar- 
bones, and the two amsa-phalaka or shoulder-blades. Excep- 
tionally, it would seem that Susruta employed the term amsa 
also to denote the shoulder-blade. Thus in the passage, quoted 
in § 30, in which he divides the bones of the skeleton in five 
classes, according to their shapes, he places the bones which he 
there calls amsa among the pan-shaped ones. It is obvious from 
this very classification that by the term amsa Susruta can there 
mean no other than the shoulder-blades, for these, as a fact, are 
pan-shaped, broad, and flat bones, while the collar-bones are short, 
cylindrical bones which belong to the class described by Susruta 
as nalaka, or reed-like. In another passage of the fifth chapter, 
in which Susruta enumerates the muscles [pe.U) of the body, he 
says that ' there are seven muscles round about the collar-bone 
(aksaka) and shoulder-blade (amsa, Original Text in § 97, cl. 4). 
Here again it is obvious that by the term amsa Susruta cannot 
mean the collar-bones, which are already indicated by the term 
aksaka. The term anisa, therefore, can only refer to the shoulder- 
blades. It is possible that Susruta might have used the terra 
amsa, which in the ordinary Sanskrit is only a general name for 
the shoulder, indifferently to denote sometimes the collar-bones, 
and at other times the shoulder-blades. But such a practice is 
obviously very inconvenient, and it is not at all probable that 
Susruta was guilty of it. It is far more probable that the 
traditional text of the passages in which Susruta is made to use 
the term amsa to denote the shoulder-blades is corrupt ; and that 
in every such case, instead of amsa we should read amsa-ja, 

^ This is not quite correct. The clavicle does not connect with the 
glenoid cavity (amsa-jntha), but with the acromion process {amsa- 
hVa). Possibly the traditional reading of Susruta's text is at 



' sprung from the shoulder.' The latter term quite properly 
describes the shoulder-blades as spring-ing' from the shoulder 
(Fig-. 12). It has already been explained in § 29 that the term 
samjfta, ' so-called,' which is so unaccountably found in the 
Traditional Recension of Susruta's list of the skeletal bones, 
suggests itself to be a corruption of the terra athsaja, caused by 
copyists unfamiliar with skeletal anatomy and its terms. It 
may be suggested that probably in the two passages above 
referred to we should also read amsaja instead of amsa} It 
would thus appear that Susruta emploj^s the following pairs of 
terms : (1) akmka andawwa, to denote the collar-bones ; (2) amm- 
phalaka and amsa-ja, to denote the shoulder-blades ; the last- 
mentioned term amsa-ja being misunderstood by copyists and 
changed either into samjna or simply into amsa. 

5. In this connexion it may be useful to identify two other 
terms occasionally used by Susruta, namely amsa-kuta and amsa- 
pltha. The former occurs in a passage of the sixth chapter of the 
Anatomical Section {Sdnra StJifma), in which Susruta describes 
two ' vital spots ' {marman) of the body (see the Original Text 
in § 97, cl. 5), called by him apalapa (apparently the upper 
attachment of the coraco-brachialis muscle : see Figs. 295, 303, 
304, in Dr. Gerrish's Textbook of Anatomy, 2nd ed., pp. 274 and 
277). These two vital spots (one, of course, on either side 
of the body) he says are situated ' below the two summits of the 
shoulder' (amsa-kuta). The 'two summits of the shoulder' 
(Fig. 22), are the two acromion processes of the right and 
left scapula, below which the caraco-brachialis attachment 
is situated. The amsa-jnlfia, lit. shoulder-seat,, is mentioned 
in a passage in the fifth chapter of the Anatomical Section 
(Original Text on § 97, cl. 6), in which Susruta describes eight 
kinds of differently shaped joints.^ There two joints are described 
as being sdnmdga^ that is shaped like a round casket {samudga). 

^ Tt may be useful to collect the passages iu question. They are 

(1) in the Number-list (§ 29), for aksaka-samjile read aksak-dmsaje; 

(2) in the Class-list (§ 30), for amsa read amsaja ; (3) in the list of 
muscles, for aksak-a/thsau read aksak-mhsajau. 

* Another mention occurs in the passage on arhsa, quoted earlier 
in this paragraph. 


These are the shoulder-joint and the hip-joint. The former is 
called amsa-pitjia, or shoulder-seat, and indicates the glenoid 
cavity, into which the head of the humerus is inserted (Fig-. 13). 
The latter is described as being" formed of the anal bone {gtida, 
coccyx), pubic bone [bhaga, pubic arch), and hip-bone [nitamba, 
ilium and ischium), and indicates the acetabulum or cotyloid 
cavity, in which the head of the femur is lodged ^ (Fig-. 20). 

6. The longer form amsaka occurs, e. g. in the passage above 
quoted from the Commentary of Gangadhar. It is a derivative of 
aihsa, shoulder, and means shoulder-bone, that is, collar-bone. 
A similar formation is that of miikhaka, temporal bone, from 
sankha, temple (§ 64), and pdrh-aka, rib, from, pdrha, side (§ 57). 

^56. TJie Shoulder-hlade or Scapula 

1. Amsa-j}/ialaka, flat bone of the shoulder, amsa-ja or amsa- 
sanmdbfiava, (bone) springing from the shoulder. All three terms 
ai'e employed to denote the shoulder-blade or scapula, but the 
first-named, amm-phalaka^ is the term which is commonly used 
by Atreya-Charaka, Susruta, and Vagbhata I. The term amsa-ja 
is conjectural and only occurs in the Compendium of Susruta 
(§§ 29, 55). The term amsa-sawudbhava is found only in the Non- 
medical Version of Atreya's statement on the skeleton, and is 
probably a synonymous variation of the Susrutiyan term amsa-ja 
(§§ 16, 17, 21). The Atharva Veda has the peculiar term 
kaphoda to denote the shoulder-blade (§ 43, cl. 6). 

2. All three lists of Atreya-Charaka (Bheda), Susruta, and 
Vagbhata I, correctly state the number of shoulder-blades to be 
two ; but there is a difficulty attending them which requires 
a word of explanation. The shoulder-girdle (Fig. 12) comprises 
two bones, and no more. These are the scapula or shoulder-blade, 
and the clavicle or collar-bone. Examining the traditional lists 
of Atreya-Charaka, Susruta, and Vagbhata I, we find a curious 

^ As a fact, the acetabulum is formed by the union of three 
bones, the ilium, ischium, and os pubis. The anal bone or coccyx 
does not enter into its formation, and should be omitted. The 
Susrutiyan text is probably currupt, as the confused manuscript 
readings indicate : see § 97, cl. 6. 


state of things. Charaka apparently enumerates three bones 
(§ 4) — amsa, shoulder, aihsa-pJialaka, shoulder-blade, and akmk'i, 
collar-bone. Vagbhata I has the same threefold enumeration 
(§ 37). On the other hand, Snsruta appears to enumerate only 
a single bone, namely aksaka, or the collar-bone (§27). As 
regards Charaka, it has been shown in § 6 that the sepaiate 
mention of aihsa, shoulder, is an early error of the manuscript 
text caused by an inadvertent repetition, by some scribe, of the 
word amsa inherent in aiiua-phalaka. In reality, therefore, the 
genuine list of Charaka (§ 7) knows only two bones as com- 
prised in the shoulder, viz. aksaka, clavicle, and aima-fhalaka, 
scapula. It is different with the list of Vagbhata I. That list 
deliberately enumerates the shoulder-peak as a third bone by the 
side of the shoulder-blade and the collar-bone ; for otherwise 
(see § 37) its total of 120 bones does not work out correetl3^ 
This, however, is only one of the numerous incongruities and 
blunders of the list of Vagbhata I ; and how he came to be 
betrayed into committing it has been explained in § 39, 
cl. 4. 

3. As regards Susruta, it has been shown in §§ 29, 30, 56, 
that the omission of the shoulder-blades from his list is a 
textual error, due in all probability to an ancient misreading 
(or false emendation), by some ignorant scribe who wrote 
samjna, so-called, for amsaja, shoulder-blade ; and that, as a 
matter of fact, Susruta explicitly mentions the shoulder-blade 
as one of those bones which he classifies as pan-shaped {kapdla). 
In reality, therefore, the genuine list of Susruta (§ 34) enumerates 
both bones which constitute the shoulder-girdle, the clavicle 
as well as the scapula. His explicit statement regarding the 
existence of the two bones, together with other evidence on the 
subject, has already been quoted in the preceding paragraph. 
An additional piece of evidence, however, may here be adduced. 
In the sixth chapter of his Anatomical Section (Stinra Sllulna), 
in which Susruta enumerates the so-called ' vital spots ' 
(mannati) in the body, he says that ' there are eight such places 
in the bones ', and among these eight bones he enumerates the 
ai'ma-phalaka, or shoulder-blades (Original Text in § 97, 
cl. 4). 




4. The scapula is a large, flat, triang-ular bone (Fig-. 13). 
That the ancient Indian anatomists knew it to be a large, flat 
bone is shown by the fact of their calling it phalaha^ which word 
means a board or slab. But it is Susruta alone who also notes 
its triangular shape. In the passage quoted in the preceding 
paragraph he particularly describes it as trika-smnhaddha, trebly 
bounded, that is, as being of a triangular form. For the same 
reason of its triangular shape the sacrum likewise is called 

Fig. 13. 

Left Scapula, Amsa-phalaka, Posterior View. 

Showing — a. Acromion process, Amsa-kuta. 

b. Coracoid process. 

c. Glenoid cavity, Amsa-pltha. 

trika : see § 60. In this connexion Dallana's explanation of 
the Susrutiyan trika-samladdJia^ triangular in form, is 
significant as showing the decay of anatomical knowledge sub- 
sequent to the time of Susruta. He says : ' The place where the 
two collar-bones connect with the neck, that place is meant by the 
term trika.' ^ This place, as may be seen by referring to Fig. 4, 

* This explanation is also quoted in tlie Bhava PrakdSa (Jiv. ed., 
p. 60). In the Bengali commeutaiy, appended to the edition of that 


has no apparent connexion with the scapula, and its mention in 
a description of the latter bone, aceording-ly, is quite oiit of place. 
The explanation of Dallana, however, would appear to be a 
tradition of considerable antiquity. For its incongruity would 
seem to have induced Vagbhata I to change the text of Susruta's 
description of the scapula. In the seventh chapter of the 
Anatomical Section of his Summary, quoting Susruta's descrip- 
tion, Vagbhata I replaces the Susrutiyan phrase trilca-mmhaddha, 
trebly bounded or triangular, by the phrase bdkurnula-sambadd/ia, 
joined to the root of the arm, i. e. to the head of the humerus. 
Here we see that Vagbhata I replaces the incongruous ex- 
pression 'junction of the collar-bone with the neck ' by the 
phrase ' junction with the head of the humerus '. Though this 
alteration doubtlessly now states a correct fact — the junction of 
the scapula with the head of the humerus in the glenoid cavity 
— it entirely abandons Susruta's striking description of the 
triangular shape of the scapula, apparently because Vagbhata I 
also did not know what to make of the Susrutiyan term trika. 

J 57. The TJiorax : Sternum and Ribs 

1. Uras or vaksas, breast, chest ; par ha, region of the ribs; 
pdrhaka ox pariuka, rib. The organs denoted by these terms, which 
are common to all three writers, Atreya-Charaka, Susruta, and 
Vagbhata I, form three sides of the thoracic cage [panjara), the 
fourth side being formed by the prstha, or back. The four sides 
of the thoracic cage are made up thus : the back by the thoracic 
vertebrae, which are included in the term 2T?tJt^, back (§ 58) ; 
the two sides by the ribs, denoted by the term pdrhaka or parhika 
(§ 57), and the front, by the sternum and costal cartilages, which 
ai'e jointly denoted by the term ^lras or vaksas, breast. 

2. Regarding the number of bones of the front of the thorax, 
that is, the breast (uras), the lists differ very considerably. 
Charaka's list (§ 4) counts fourteen, while the traditional 

work by Debendranath and Upendranath Sengupta, p. 597, the place 
in question is explained as ' the most depressed spot of the vertebral 
column, well known under the name trika ' {merudatUr sarva-nimna 
trika name 2>ra8iddha) ! 




Recension of Susruta's list (§ 27) counts only ei^ht, and the list 
of Vagbhata I (§ 37) agrees with the latter. Again, the Non- 
medical Version of Atreya's list counts not less then seventeen. 
It has already been shown to be very probable that the latter 
number represents the true count of Susruta, and that the num- 
ber eight is properly the count of the list of Vagbhata I, from 
which subsequently it was foisted into the list of Susruta (§§ 33, 
34^, 40). 

Fig. 14. 

The Thorax. Anterior View. 

Showing — 1-7, a. Costal cartilages, Jatru. 
1-12, b. Ribs, Pdrscaka. 
I. Sternum, Uras. 
II. Vertebral column, Prstha-vamia. 

3. The bones of the organs that constitute the sides and back 
of the thoracic cage are satisfactorily accounted for in the next 
two paragraphs. The only bones that remain to be accounted 
for are those of the organs that constitute the front, that is, the 
sternum and the costal cartilages (Figs. 14 and 16). It may, 
therefore, be justly concluded that these must account for the 
numbers mentioned by the Indian anatomists. The cartilages, 
we may remember (§ 30), are reckoned by them as ' tender ' 


{laruna) bones. The costal cartilages (1-7, a, in Fig. 14) form 
the links that connect the sternal end of the shafts of the ribs 
with the sternum. But only the seven upper ribs (distinguished 
as the ' true ' ribs) are in this way connected. The cartilages of 
the upper three ' false ' ribs (eighth, ninth, tenth) are attached 
to the cartilage of the seventh rib. The remaining two 
ribs (eleventh and twelfth) do not connect at all with the 
sternum, being ' floating ' ribs. It will be seen that these 
facts admit of two ways of counting the number of costal 
cartilages. One may take them to be either seven or eight. We 
have only seven cartilages, if we take those of the seventh, eighth, 
ninth, and tenth ribs which are attached to one another as con- 
Btituting but a single cartilage ; or we obtain eight cartilages, 
if we count the cartilage of the seventh rib and the cartilaginous 
attachments thereto of the eighth, ninth, and tenth ribs as two 
distinct cartilages. Applying these alternative views to the 
whole of the cartilages, or ' tender ' bones, of the breast, we have 
to count either seven or eight cartilages on either side of the 
sternum, that is, a total of either fourteen or sixteen cartilages, 
or ' tender ' bones. 

4. Both views are represented in the lists of the ancient Indian 
anatomists. Susruta counts sixteen bones ; and these sixteen, 
together with the median bone of the sternum, make up the 
seventeen bones of the uras or breast, which we find in the 
genuine form of his list (§ 34). Charaka, on the other hand, 
counts only fourteen bones (§ 4). The difficulty in his case is 
that apparently he ignores the existence of the sternum : one 
expects that he would count fifteen bones. Considering that the 
sternum is a very prominent bone which even a less experienced 
anatomist would have no difficulty in feeling under the skin, it 
is inconceivable that Charaka (or rather Atreya, whose system 
Charaka reports) should have failed to recognize it. The proba- 
bility is that Atreya merely omitted to distinguish between 
bone and cartilage, that is, between the hard bone of the sternum 
and the ' tender ' bone of the costal cartilages. To him probably 
the sternum appeared to be merely a continuation of the latter 
which he considered as meeting in the median line of the breast. 
He looked upon the front of the thoracic cage as formed by 


a series of seven long bones, placed horizontally one above the 
other, and attached to one another in the median line. On the 
homolog-ical principle, he divided this series of bars into two 
halves, and thus obtained his total of fourteen bones. 

5. Susruta's treatment of the bones of the breast marks an 
anatomical advance, inasmuch as he distinguishes the sternum 
from the adjacent costal cartilages^ and the cartilaginous attach- 
ments of the eighth, ninth, and tenth ribs from the cartilage of 
the seventh rib. Incidentally, moreover, Susruta's count of 
seventeen bones of the breast has an important chronological 
bearing, inasmuch as the same count is found in the ritual 
Safapatha Brdhmana (see ^§ 42, 62), the reputed author of which, 
Yajnavalkya, not being a medical expert himself, must have 
obtained his knowledge of the skeleton from the current surgical 
school of his time. Susruta, therefore, must be placed earlier in 
date than the Satajjatha Bmlimana^ 

6. It is not quite so easy to recognize a rational ground for 
the number eight of the list of Vagbhata I. The only explana- 
tion that can be sugg*ested is that it arose from an iinintelligent 
attempt at combining the doctrines of Atreya-Charaka and 
Susruta. While accepting the former's theory of a series of bars, 
Vagbhata I added to it an additional eighth bar, in conformity 
with the count of Susruta. At the same time he abandoned the 
homological division into halves, which would have given him 
sixteen bones for the breast. The reason of this abandonment, 
probably, was that the duplication of the number eight (or, for 
that matter, of the number seven) would have interfered with his 
obtaining the requisite total of 360 bones for the whole skeleton 
(§§ 38, 41). 

f 58. Continuation : the Ribs, and their Appendages 

1. Pdrsva, region of the ribs ; stana, breast ; pdrsvaka or 
parhika, rib ; sthdlaka, socket ; arbuda, tubercle. The last three 
terms are peculiar to the list of Atreya-Charaka (§ 4), from j 
which they are adopted into the list of Vagbhata I (§ 37). 
Susruta uses only the first term, but that he agrees with the 



theory of Atreya-Charaka, implied in the use of the other three 
terms, is evident from the fact that both hold the same number 
of bones to constitute the parha, or region of the ribs. Accord- 
ing- to Atreya-Charaka these bones number seventy-two, while 
according to Susruta they number thirty-six on either side, and 
therefore seventy-two altogether. The term stana occurs in the 
list of the Atharva Veda (§ 43). 

2. Susruta does not explain how this 
number is arrived at, but Charaka states 
that there are twenty- four pdrsvaka or 
parsuka, ribs, twenty-four sthdlaka, sockets, 
and twenty-four arbtoda, tubercles. And, of 
course, as indicated by Susruta's manner 
of counting, it is to be understood that 
there are twelve of each kind, that is, 
altogether thirty-six, on each side. Each 
rib (Figs. 15, 16, 17) consists ^ of a shaft, 
and of a head with neck ; also at the point 
of junction of these two parts there is a 
tubercle which articulates with the trans- 
verse process of the corresponding verte- 
bra ; and this transverse process has a 
facet, or very shallow cavity, for the re- 
ception of the tubercle. It is from this 
facet that the transverse process takes 
its name sthdlaka, which word means a 
shallow socket. The transverse processes, 
though really a part of the vertebral sys- 
tem, are considered by the ancient Indian 
anatomists a part of the system of ribs by 

reason of their containing the sockets, or facets, for holding the 
ribs. The word sthdlaka is a diminutive of the word sthdla, 
vessel,' cup, or pan, and means a small or shallow cup or pan. 
In anatomical terminology the two words, sthdla and sthdlaka, 
mean, respectively, socket for a tooth (§ 68) and shallow socket 
(or facet) for a rib. The name of the tubercle is arhada, and the 

' See Dr. Potter's Commend of Human Anatomy, p. 38. 


Fig. 15. 

The First and Sixth 

a. Head 

b. Neck 

c. Tubercle, Arhuda. 
e. Shaft, Pdrstmka. 

f. Extremity of Shaft, 
articulating with costal 





name of the shaft (inckiding" the neck), or rib proper, is parmka 
or pdrh'cika. Each of the three parts, the rib, its tubercle, and 
its corresponding- transverse process, as usual with the ancient 
Indian anatomists (§ 44), is counted as a separate bone. It may 
be notedj however, that even admitting" the Indian way of 

Fig. 16. 
Diagram of Transverse Section of Thorax. 

Showing — I. Vertebra, Prsthdsthi, with a. Body. 

b, h. Transverse process, Sthdlaka. 

c, c. Spinous process. 
II. Rib, with c?, d. Shaft, Pdr^vaka. 

e, e. Tubercle, Arhuda. 
f,f. Costal cartilage, Uras. 
III. Sternum, Uras. 

counting, there would strictly be only sixty -eig-ht bones (or 
thirty-four on either side), because in reality there exist only ten 
tubercles on either side, the two lowest, or ' floating- ', ribs (the 
eleventh and twelfth) having- no tubercles. But the Indian 
anatomists, owing- to their usual fancy for symmetry (§ 44), count 
twelve tubercles, just as they count fifteen joints in the fingers 
and toes. 


3. The only Indian writer, who, so far as I know, attempts 
to g-ive a detailed explanation of the three terms pdrsvalca, 
sthalaka, arhula, and of their respective numbers, is Nanda 
Pandita. As his explanation differs from that above given, it 
becomes necessary to consider its claims to acceptance. It occurs 

Fig. 17. 
Thoracic Vertebra, Ktkasa. 

A. Lateral View. 

B. Posterior View. 

a. Body. h. Spinous process, 

c, c. Transverse processes, Sthalaka, with cl. Facet for tubercle of rib. 

in his commentary on the Institutes of Vishnu, and runs as 
follows : 

There are thirteen ribs {pdrhaka) on either side, which 
ag-g-regate to twenty-six. The tubercles, {arhida), being the 
bones which connect the ribs with the breast (rahas), are ten 
on either side, which make twenty. The sockets [sthalaka), 
being the bones which connect them with the back (prst/ia), are 
thirteen on either side, which make twenty-six. In this way, 
the ribs together with their tubercles and sockets amount to 
seventy-two (i. e. 26 + 20 + 26 = 72). (Original Text in § 85.) 

It is evident that in this explanation the tubercles [arhula) 
are identified with the costal cartilages which connect the upper 
ten ribs with the sternum (Fig. 16). But the term tubercle, 
arbuda, would be most inappropriate as applied to the costal 
cartilages. Moreover, the latter do not belong- to the 'region 

L 2 


of the ribs ' (pdrha),hnt to the front of the thoracic cage, or the 
breast (nras) ; see § 57. Further, there are, strictly speaking-, not 
ten costal cartilages, but only seven ; for the four lowest connected 
ribs have, between them, only one cartilage. On this last point, 
indeed, theories of counting might differ ; but what is fatal to the 
explanation of Nanda Pandita is the explicit statement in the 
list of Charaka that the numbers of the ribs, sockets, and tubercles 
are equal, there being twenty-four of each kind. Another fatal 
objection is that there are, as a fact, not ' thirteen ribs on either 
side ', but only twelve. A thirteenth rib does occur in excep- 
tional cases ; but twelve is the normal number, and obviously 
that number alone can serve for the count. Moreover, it is most 
improbable that Nanda Pandita had any knowledge of the rare 
occurrence of an exceptional thirteenth rib. In all probability, 
he adopted his count of thirteen ribs from the Satapatlia 
Brdhmana (see § 42, cl. 9), which treats the collar-bone as a 
thirteenth rib, not realizing that by doing so he was duplicating 
the collar-bones which are separately enumerated in the list of 
the Institutes of Vishnu under the name akm {ahaka). 

^59. The Vertebral Column 

1. Prstha, back ; prstha-vamm, lit. back-row, i. e. vertebral or 
spinal column ; 2W!itJi-dsthi, back-bone, or pntlm-gat-dsthi^ bone 
belonging to the back, or prsti, back-bone, all three denoting the 
vertebra. The first two terms are chiefly found in Susruta ; the 
next two chiefly in Charaka and in the Non-medical version of 
the Institutes of Vishnu. The last term, prnti (or prstl), which 
properly denotes the transverse process of a vertebra, and 
thence the vertebra itself, is peculiar to the Vedas (§§ 42, 43), 
where it occurs in the plural number to denote the series of 
vertebrae or the vertical column.^ 

^ In the Vedas there occur the following further terms : klJcasa for 
the entire spinal column, or for its cervical, or thoracic, jjoi'tion ; 
anuka or anukya and kardkara, for its truncal portion ; anuka, for 
its thoracic, or lumbar portion, and udara for its lumbar portion ; 
also karukara and kuntfq^a for the transverse processes of the vertebra. 
See § 42, cl. 3 and 4 ; also my article on Ancient Indian Medicine, in 
the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1907, pp. 2-10. 




2. The actual number of the bones of the entire vertebral coKimn 
is twenty-six^ consisting- of twenty-four simple and two com- 
posite bones. The former are the true vertebrae, and comprise 
the seven cervical, the twelve thoracic, and the five lumbar 

Fig. 18. 

Vertebral Column, Prstha-vamia. 

A. Lateral View. B. Dorsal View. 

I. Cervical, G'rivd. II. Thoracic, Amlka. III. Lumbar, Udara. 
IV. Sacrum, Trika. V. Coccyx, Guda. 

vertebrae. The two composite bones are the sacrum or sacral 
bone, and the coccyx or anal (caudal) bone (Fig-. 18). Either 
of these consists of five vertebrae fused together, and hence 
known as the false vertebrae. It is to be noted, however, that 




the first sacral vertebra is of a transitional and partly lumbar 
character, and occasionally remains permanently separate.^ It 
is this fact which appears to have caused Susruta to count six 
lumbar vertebrae. 

3. As reg-ards the cervical vertebrae, they are counted by the 
Indian anatomists separately, as constituents of the neck (§ 61). 
Moreover, in Susruta's system, the sacral and anal bones also are 


Fig. 19. 

Thoracic Vertebra. Prsthasthi or Prsii. 
Superior Aspect. 

a. Body. b, b. Transverse processes, Sthdlaka. 
c. Spinous process. d, d. Facets for tubercle of ribs. 

e. Arch. 

counted separately as constituents of the pelvis (§ 60). There re- 
main, therefore, only the twelve thoracic and five lumbar vertebrae, 
altogether seventeen, or, if we include the sacral and anal bones, 
nineteen bones to be accounted for. Against these seventeen 
or nineteen bones Susruta counts thirty, and Charaka forty-five. 
In order to appreciate these large numbers correctly, we must 

^ In some quadrupeds, e.g. the gibbon, the normal number of the 
lumbar is six, and of the sacral four. See Dr. Gerrish, Textbook of 
Anatomy, 2nd ed., p. 133, Dr. Wiedersheim, Structure of Man, '^. 34. 


remember the peculiar practice of the Indian anatomists to count 
' processes ' as separate bones (§ 44, cl. 1). Each vertebra (Fig. 19) 
consists of a ' body ' and an ' arch ', the latter being- constituted 
of three particularly prominent ' processes ', viz. the two trans- 
verse processes and the spinous process. Charaka counts these 
four partsj that is, the body and the three processes of the arch, 
as separate bones. On this point, Susruta differs from Charaka; 
and it constitutes one of the two cardinal points of difference 
between the two systems (for the other, see §§ 65, 66). In the 
view of Susruta, with his more thorough application of the 
principle of homology (§ 28, cl. 2), the body and spinous process, 
both of which lie in the median line of the body, constitute but 
a single bone, while the two transverse processes, being homo- 
logous on the right and left sides of the body, are separate 
bones. Accordingly, while Charaka counts four, Susruta 
counts only three bones to each vertebra. Moreover, with 
regard to the thoracic vertebrae, another point must be remem- 
bered Their transverse processes were reckoned by the Indian 
anatomists along with the ribs as their sthdlaka, or sockets, and 
have been already disposed of in the preceding paragraph. It 
is only the body and spinous process of the thoracic vertebrae 
which are counted by them as ' bones belonging to the back ' 
( pr-^tha-gat-dsthi) . 

4. The system of Susruta counts thirty bones, exclusive of the 
vertebrae of the neck (§ 61) and the pelvis (§ 60). This number 
is made up thus : 

12 thoracic vertebrae (excl. transverses) . . .12 bones 
6 lumbar vertebrae (incl. first sacral, and dividing 

each into body and two transverses) x 3 . . 18 bones 

Total . 30 bones 

In the case of the first sacral vertebra, its two alae (Fig. 20, i i) 
correspond to the two transverse processes of the ordinary 
lumbar vertebra. 

5. The system of Charaka counts forty-five bones. Like 
Susruta's system it excludes the vertebrae of the neck ; but. 
unlike it, it includes those of the pelvis (the sacral and anal 
bones). Accordingly its numeration is made up thus : 


1 2 thoracic vertebrae (excl. transverses, but separating 

body and spine) x 2 24 bones 

5 lumbar vertebrae (separating body, spine, and two 

transverses) X 4 20 bones 

1 pelvic bone (incl. sacrum and coccyx) ... 1 bone 

Total 45 bones 

6. The treatment of the pelvic bones by Susruta and Charaka 
lespectively shows the former's advance in anatomical know- 
ledge. That Charaka took the sacrum and coccyx to constitute 
a single bone is shown by the circumstance {infra, cl. 7) of 
Vagbhata I adopting that count from him. Susruta's more 
intimate knowledge of the structure of the pelvis is shown not 
only by the fact that he recognized the separate existence of the 
sacrum and coccyx, but also by the fact that he realized the 
peculiar shape of the sacrum as being triangular (§ 60, cl. 3), and 
especially of its first vertebra as resembling that of the fifth 
lumbar, on which account, in fact, he counted the first sacral 
rather as a lumbar vertebra. 

7. The system of Vagbhata I is peculiar. Its aim is to 
combine the systems of Charaka and Susruta (§ 38). Following 
the doctrine of the latter, Vagbhata I counts thirty back-bones, 
excluding the sacral and anal bones from the vertebral column, 
and relegating them to the pelvis. But if he had reckoned 
these two as separate bones, he would not have been able to 
secure the required total of 360 bones for the whole skeleton. 
Accordingly, with regard to this count, he adopted the system 
of Charaka, and counted the sacrum and coccjrx as constituting 
a single bone. In the sj'stem of Vagbhata I, therefore, the term 
trika, or triangular bone, which he took over from Susruta, 
includes both the sacral and anal bones (§ 60, cl. 4). 

§ 60. The Pelvis : Hip-hones, Puhes, Sacrum, Coccyx 

1. Sroni, pelvis, or the pelvic cavity, consisting of sroni-phalaka, 
or nitamba, hip-blade ; hhaga or b/iag-dsthi, pubes or pubic bone ; 
trika, sacrum or sacral bone ; and gtida or gud-ddki, coccyx or 
anal (caudal) bone. The term sroni-])halaka is peculiar to the 

§60] THE PELVIS 153 

list of Charaka (§ 4), while Susruta (§ 27) and Vagbhata I (§ 37) 
use the term nitamha. The full form bhag-dsfJii, bone of the 
pubes, or the pubic arch, is employed in the list of Charaka. 
The shorter form IJiaga occurs in the lists of Susruta and 
Vagbhata I. In literary Sanskrit, and in popular usage, the 
word bhaga has the narrower meaning of the external female 
sexual organ, the vulva ^ yoni)', but in medical usage it has 
a wider meaning, irrespective of sex. There it denotes the 
inferior part, or base, of the trunk, that is, in the male, 
the space between the anus and scrotum, or the perinaeum ; 
in the female, the space occupied by the vulva and the perinaeum. 
When not referring to the trunk as a whole, but to its bony 
constituents, b/iaga, or more accurately bhag-dsthi, or bone of 
hhaga, denotes the bone contained in that inferior part, namely, 
the piibic arch, made up by the two ossa pubis and the symphysis 
(Figs. 4, 21). It is quite correctly described by Chakrapanidatta 
(§11, cl. 2, p. 36) as ' the cross {tiryak) bone which binds together 
the haunch-bones (ilium phis ischium) in front '. The full form 
gud-ddJii, or bone of the anus, anal (or caudal) bone, occurs in 
the Compendium of Vag*bhata 11.^ But in the lists of Susruta 
and Vagbhata I the shorter form gtula is used. That word 
ordinarily means anus, but of course in the lists, being the 
denotation of a bone, it must signify the anal, or caudal bone, 
that is, the coccyx. 

2. Susruta, in his statement on the skeleton (§ 27), explicitly 
states that the pelvic cavity is constituted of five bones, namely, 
the anal bone {guda), the pubic bone {bhaga), the two hip-bones 
{nitamba or sroni-jjJialaka), and the triangular bone {trika, or 
sacrum). This agrees with the actual constitution of the pelvic 
cavity. For the pelvis includes the coccyx or caudal bone {guda), 

^ It is this circumstance which led to the absurdity, explained in 
§ 9, of the inclusion of the male and female generative organs, 
medhr-dsthi, penis, and bhaga, vulva, by Gangadhar in his recension 
of Charaka's list of the bones of the skeleton. The usage of literary 
Sanskrit is taught in the great vocabulary, the Amarakosa, while the 
medical usage is defined in the medical vocahulary, Rdjanighantu ; 
see § 97, cl. 7. 

^ e.g. A.sfdnga Hrdaya, Niddna Sthdna, chap, ix, verse 1, in 
1st ed., vol. i, p. 758. 


the triang-ular sacrum {trika)^ and the two ossa innominata. 
These last-mentioned bones consist, each of three parts, the 
ilium, ischium, and os pubis. The Indian anatomists prefer to 
divide the ossa innominata into two parts, namely a posterior 
and an anterior portion. The former, consisting- of the ilium 
and ischium, exists in dujilicjite, one on the right, the other 
on the left side of the skeleton, and is named sroni-phalaka (or 
vitamba), blade of the pelvis, hip-blade. The latter is formed 
by the prominent pubic arch, and is called bhag-dsthi, bone ol 

Pelvis, Sroni. Anterior VieM^ 

Showing — a, a. Ilium jj?«» (below) Ischium, Nitamba. 

b, b. Isohio pubic arch, Vi/aj)a. 

c. CoccjTc, Guda (see Fig. 18). 

d. Fifth lumbar vertebra. 

e. First sacral or sixth lumbar vertebra. 
/. Sacrum (2nd-5th vertebrae), Trika. 
g. Pubic arch, Bhag-dsthi. 

h. Ridge between first and second sacral vertebrae. 
i, i. Alae of first sacral or sixth lumbar vertebra. 
k, k. Acetabulum, Guda-bhaga-nitamba. 

the pubes (Figs. 4, 20). As this bone lies in the median line 
of the skeleton it is not subject to duplication by the homo- 
logical principle, but (like the penis and vulva to which it gives 
attachment) it is counted, in the Indian anatomical system, as 
a single bone. In fact, it corresponds, in the lower part of the 
body, to the breast-bone or sternum, in the upper part ; and thus 
the ischio-pubic arch (vitajja, § 28, footnote on p. 7"2), connecting 

§60] THE PELVIS 155 

the pubic arch with the ischium, is the homologue of the clavicular 
arch [kaha-dfiara, clavicle), connecting- the sternum with the 
shoulder. The pubic arch, of course, does not really consist 
of a single bone, but is made up of two bones, the ossa pubis, 
which form the two sides of the arch, and which are bound 
at the top of the arch by means of a cartilaginous disk forming* 
the symphysis pubis. But it must be remembered that for the 
Indian anatomist cartilag-e is bone (§ 30), and from his point of 
view he was justified in regarding- the whole arch as composed 
of a single bone. We must also remember that the mode of 
counting the bones of the skeleton is more or less arbitrary 
at all times. Modern anatomy counts the ilium and ischium 
as two separate bones, thoug-h, as a matter of fact, they are 
ankylosed in the adult : it does so as a matter of scientific 
convenience, and is justified in doing- so by the circumstancje 
that they are really separate in early life. Indian anatomists, 
on the other hand, having- regard to the adult condition, count 
the ilium and ischium as constituting a sing-le bone. 

3. On the other hand, in the system of Atreya-Charaka, the 
anal {gudci) and sacral {trika) bones are not reckoned as parts 
of the pelvis, but as a portion of the vertebral column. In that 
system, indeed, those two bones are considered to constitute but 
a single bone, which is included among- the forty-five vertebrae 
(§ 59, cl. 5) without being named separately. This, as has been 
stated (§ 59, cl. 6), is one of the marks of the divergent pelvic 
systems of Susruta and Atreya-Charaka. Susruta seems to have 
been the first to count the sacrum and coccyx separately, and 
thus to recognize the distinction between true and false 
vertebrae. It is also not improbable that he was the first 
particularly to observe the triang-ular shape of the sacrum, and 
to give it the name irika, or triang-le, which expresses that fact, 
and by which it is now generally known. It should be noted, 
however, that Susruta's trika is not quite identical with the 
sacrum of modern anatomy. He treats the first sacral vertebra 
as belonging to the lumbar reg-ion, and as forming- a sixth 
lumbar vertebra (§ 59, cl. 2, 4). His sacrum, therefore, comprises 
only four vertebrae, and it constitutes the triangular bone 
which is made up of these four, and which subtends the ridge 




that connects the two uppermost foramina of the sacrum (Fig-. 
20, h). 

4. Vagbhata I, as usual, attempts to combine the systems 
of Atreya-Charaka and Susruta. From the latter he adopts 
the transfer of the sacral and anal bones from the vertebral 
column (pr,^-f/ia) to the pelvis [sroni). But he follows the former 
in counting them as forming- together a single bone, which he 
names trika, or triangular (§ 38, cl. 3, § 39, cl. 7). 

C. The Head and Neck 
§61. The Cervical Vertehrae, 07' Neck-hones 

1. Grlvd, neck. This term is used in all the three lists, of 
Atreya-Charaka, Susruta, and Vagbhata I, to denote the cervical 
column in the posterior part of the neck. The list in the 
Atharva Veda (§ 43) uses the term skandha in the plural number 
to denote the neck-bones. 

Fig. 21. 
The Atlas, viewed from above. 
a. Arch. 

Fig. 22. 

The Axis. Anterior View. 

o. Body. 

h. Odontoid process. 

2. There is no part of the skeleton with regard to the number 
of bones of which the lists differ more widely. The list of 
Atreya-Charaka (§ 4) makes the number of neck-bones to be 
fifteen. The Traditional Recension of the list of Susruta (§ 27) 
makes it to be only nine, while the list of Vagbhata I (§ 37) 
makes it to be thirteen. As a matter of fact, the number of 
the cervical vertebrae is seven ; but they greatly differ among 


themselves in some respects. The first vertebra, called the 
atlas (Fig-, 21), is practically a mere ring-. It lacks the body 
and spinous process of the normal vertebra. The second vertebra, 
called the axis (Fig-. 22) consists practically only of a large 
strong- body, surmounted by the odontoid process, on which 
as a pivot the atlas rotates.^ The remaining- five vertebrae 
possess the normal type (§ 59, el. 3), and consist of a body and 
three (one spinous and two transverse) processes ; but these 
processes, in all except the seventh, are short and bifid at the 
extremity (Fig. 23), and hence not very prominent. The seventh 
vertebra is exceptional : it approaches in shape the upper thoracic 

Fig. 23. 
A Cervical Vertebra, viewed from above. 

a. Body. 

b. Bifid spinous process. 
c, c. Transverse processes. 

vertebrae, having a very long spinous process, whence it is 
called vertebra prominens, as well as large transverse processes.^ 
3. These considerations fully explain Susruta's count of nine 
neck-bones. He counted each of the six upper vertebrae as 
a single bone ; but the seventh he treated in the same way 
as he treated the thoracic vertebrae (§ 59, cl. 3), that is to say, 
he counted it as consisting of three bones ; viz. a body j)his 

^ See Dr. Gerrish's Textbook of AnatoniT/, 2nd ed., p. 117. The 
odontoid process, in fact, is the body of the atlas from which it has 
become separated, and become ankylosed to the axis. 

"^ Ibid., pp. 117, 124, 'The spinous processes of the upper verte- 
brae are not readily felt in the living body, until we reach the 7th or 
sometimes the 6th spine.' 


spine, and two transverse processes. He thus obtained 6 + 3 = 9 

4. Atreya-Charaka obtained his total of fifteen bones by 
treating the cervical column somewhat similarly to the vertebral 
column (§ 59). He gave two transverse processes to each vertebra, 
counting" them as separate bones, and looked upon the bodies 
of the vertebrae as constituting together a single columnar bone. 
He thus had twice seven transverse processes, or fourteen bones, 
plus one columnar body, or a total of fifteen bones. That this 
was really Atreya's procedure is shown by a statement of the 
Satapatka Brdhmana, which is evidently based on Atreya's theory 
of the cervical bones, and which says (§ 42, cl. 3) of the neck- 
bones, ' Fourteen are the transverse processes, and their strength (or 
strong bone) is the fifteenth ; hence by means of them, though 
they are very small, man can bear a heavy load.' At the same 
time, Atreya's procedure shows that his knowledge of the 
structure of the cervical bones was not so intimate as that of 
Susruta ; for there is no single central columnar bone in the 
neck, and the transverse processes of the vertebrae are far less 
prominent in the neck than in the back ^ (Fig. 18). 

4. As regards the count of Vagbhata I, his total of thirteen 
bones probably represents, as usual, a compromise between the 
systems of Atreya-Charaka and Susruta. He appears to have 
counted two bones (transverse processes) for each of the cervical 
vertebrae, except the first, which, being a mere bony ring, 
without body and spinous process, was reckoned as a single 
bone. He would thus obtaiii his total of thirteen bones (i.e. 
6x2 = 12 + 1 = 13). 

J 62. The Windpipe 

1. Kantlianddi, lit, throat-pipe, or jatru, windpipe. The 
former term is peculiar to the list of Susruta (§ 27), the latter 
is employed in the list of Atreya-Charaka (§ 4). In the list of 
Vagbhata I both terms occur, though they denote the same 
organ, this being (as explained in § 38, cl. 4) one of its con- 
spicuous incongruities. 

^ ' The transverse processes are rather short.'^— /&., p. 116. 




2. The windpipe consists of four parts, the larynx, trachea, 
and two bronchi (Fig. 24). These four parts are enumerated by 
Susruta as four distinct bones. On the other hand, Atreya- 
Charaka counts the whole organ as a single bone. Strictly 
speaking, of course, the organ consists not of bone at all but of 
cartilage ; but by the ancient Indian anatomists cartilage is re- 
garded as a kind of tender, or immature {kiruna) bone (§ 30, p. 80). 

3. The word jatru — so far as I am aware — is explained in all 
Sanskrit dictionaries (native Indian, as well as European) to 

Fig. 24. 
The Windpipe, Jatru or Kanthanadl. 
L. Larynx. Tr. Trachea. B, B. Bronchi. 

mean, not the windpipe, but the clavicle or collar-bone. This — 
so far as the occurrence of the word in medical literature is 
concerned — is a total mistake- It becomes, therefore, necessary 
to discuss more fully the correct meaning of the word.^ 

4. In the earliest medical compendia the term Jairu is either 
synonymous with (/rlid, neck, or signifies more especially a 

^ See also a fuller discussion of this point in my article on ' Ancient 
Indian Medicine' in the Journal of the Jioi/al Aniatic Society for 190G, 
pp. 922 ff. 


particular aspect of it. The neck contains two structures, 
posteriorly the cervical column, denoted more particularly by the 
term grlvd^ and anteriorly the windpipe, denoted more par- 
ticularly by the term jatru. As the latter term, in a general 
way, also denotes the whole neck, Susruta prefers, in his list of 
bones (§ 27), to employ the more specialized term kanthanddi, 
throat-pipe, to indicate the windpipe as distinguished from 
the cervical column. On the other hand, outside his list, he 
frequently uses the two terms jatru and grlvd as practically 
synonymous, to denote sometimes the windpipe, sometimes the 
neck generally. Thus in his class-list of the bones (§ 30), 
enumerating the cartilages, or tender bones {tarmia), he makes 
them to include ' the nose, ears, neck [grlvd), and eyeballs ' 
(Original Text in § 88). Here obviously the term gnvd cannot 
refer to the cervical column, but must denote the windpipe. 
Attain in the sixth chapter of the Anatomical Section [Sdrlra 
Stfidnd), speaking of certain thirty-seven Wital spots' [marman), 
he says (Jiv. ed., p. 336, cl. 4) that they are situated ' from the 
neck [grlvd) upwards'; but afterwards (Jiv., pp. 342-3, cl. 32), 
mentioning them in detail, he describes them as ' situated from 
the neck [jatru) upwards'; and then, enumerating them, he 
mentions among their number some which are situated in the 
windpipe {kanthandrh) and others in the cervical column [grlvd). 
Here we have Susruta employing the term jatru as synonymous 
with grlvd, neck, in a general way, and, again, specializing, he 
uses grlvd for the posteriorly- lying cervical column, but kantha- 
nd(]l for the anteriorly-lying windpipe. Similarly Vagbhata II 
(in his Astdnga-Hrdaya, II. 4, verse 2, in 1st ed., vol. I, p. 592), 
speaking of the same thirty-seven vital spots, says that they 
are situated urdhvam j atroh, or upwards of the neck, wsmg jatru 
synonymously with grlvd. Again in the fifth chapter of the 
Pathological Section [Niddiia Stiidna), speaking of the rheumatic 
disease manyd-stamhlta^ or rigidity of the neck, Susruta says 
(Jiv. ed., p. 249, verse 69} grlvd apavartafe, ' the neck becomes 
awry.' Similarly Charaka, or rather Dridhabala^ (VI. 26, 

^ The statement is really one of the Complementer Dridhahala, who 
wrote the chapter iu question. He is expressly named as its author 
by Vijaya Rakshita, the commentator of the Nidaua (Jiv. ed., p. 152). 

§ 62] THE WINDPIPE 161 

verse 41«, Jiv. ed., 1896, p. 775), referring- to the same disease, 
says grwd antar-dyamyate, ' the neck becomes bent inward.' On 
the other hand, Vag-bhata I {Astdhga SamgraJia, III. 15, vol. I, 
p. 300, last line, quoted by Vagbhata II in Astdnga Hrdaya, 
III. 15, verse 22, in 1st ed., vol. I, p. 831), sviysjatnir-^dyamyate} 
This shows that grlvd and jati'u are synonymous terms. Ag-ain, 
in the thirteenth chapter of the same section, speaking- of the 
Valmlka disease,^ Susruta tells us (Jiv. ed., p. 286) that, among 
other places, it occurs gnvdydm-^urdhva-jatruni, in the cervical 
column and upwards of the windpipe, that is, in the neck 
generally. Vagbhata I, speaking on the same subject [Astdiiga 
Samgraha, VI. 36, vol. II, p. 316, 1. 3, quoted by Vagbhata II, 
in Astdnga Hrdaya, VI. 31, in 1st ed., vol. II, p. 682, verse 193), 
says simiply Jatrilrd/ivaih, from the neck upwards, omitting ^nz;^, 
and therefore using jatru as indicating the neck generally. On 
the other hand, Madhava, in his Niddna (Jiv. ed., p. 276), para- 
phrasing the statement of Susruta, uses the two terms gnvd, 
cervical column, and gala, windpipe, instead of Susruta's gnvd 
and jatnt, thus showing that he took jatno to be synonymous 
with gala, windpipe. Again, in the fifteenth chapter of the 
Supplementary Section {V tiara Tantra), speaking of hikkd, or 
hiccough, Susruta uses the term jatru-muldt, ' from the base of 
the neck ' (Jiv. ed., p. 849, verse 9, quoted by Madhava, in his 
Niddna, p. 105). The same phrase is used by Charaka (or rather 
Dridhabala, VI. 19, in Jiv. ed., 1896, p. 689, verse 30 a) and 
Vagbhata I [Astdnga Saingralia, III. 5, vol. I, p. 270, 1. 6, 
quoted by Vagbhata II in Astdnga Hrdaya, III. 4, verse 22, in 
1st ed., vol. I, p. 716). Gayadasa, in his commentary on the 
Compendium of Susruta (according to Vijaya Rakshita, in the 
Madhukosa, Jiv. ed., p. 105), explains here jatrio by grwd, neck, 
or kantJia, throat. The two terms urdJiva-jatru and jatrurdhva 
are synonymous, and denote one of the three parts into which 
the body is divided. These three parts are : (1) the four 

' Both terms, apavartate and dyamyate, according to the com- 
mentators, are synonymous of vakri-hhavati or vahri-kriyate, ' it 
becomes crooked' [Niddna, p. 152 ; Astdnga Hrdaya, p. 831). 

2 Suppurating scrofulous glands, according to Dr. U. C. Dutt's 
translation in his edition of the Madhava Niddna, p. 193. 



extremities [mkJid), (2) the trunk or middle {antarddhi or madhya), 
and (3) the neck and head {uro-grlva). It is the last-named 
portion which is also called urdhva-jatm or jatrurdha, i. e. ' the 
portion from the neck upwards ', and inclusive of the neck. 
Both forms of the term are frequently met with. Thus Susruta. 
describing the respective scope of the various parts of Medical 
Science, in the first chapter of the Introductoiy Section [SUtra 
Sfhdna, Jiv. ed., p. 2), says of Minor Surgery, that it con- 
cerns itself with ' the cure of the diseases which have their seat 
in the portion of the body from the neck upwards {urdhva-jatru), 
that is, those maladies which affect the ears, eyes, mouth, nose, 
and other organs '. Chakrapanidatta, in his Commentary {Bhdnu- 
mati, p. 20), here says that the term jafru means ' the base of 
the neck ' {gnvd-mula), and explains the phrase urdhva-jatru to 
mean 'from the neck (base of the neck) upwards' {jatruna 
urdhvam). Dallana, in his comment on the same phrase (Jiv. 
ed., p. 7), says that according to some 'jatru means the base of 
the neck, and according to others, the point of junction of the 
sternum and clavicles'. In accordance with this definition, 
Susruta, in the Anatomical Section, chap. Ill, cl. 7 (Jiv. ed., 
p. 337), enumerates certain vital spots {marman) as situated 
in the body from the neck upwards {jafrurdhvam). In the 
Pathological Section, chap. I, verse 14, Susruta again speaks 
of ' diseases seated in the organs from the neck upwards {urdhva- 
jatru) ; and Dallana (Jiv., p. 459) once more explains those 
diseases to be ' those affecting the ejQs, mouth, nose, ears, and 
cranium '. Many other examples of this use of the phrase 
urdhva-jatru might be quoted from the Compendium of Susruta, 
e.g. Sutra Sthdna, XXI. 30 (Jiv. ed., p. 68, 1. 20) ; Cikitsita 
Sthdna, XXXVI, 24 (Jiv., p. 569), &c. The same usage is veiy 
common in the Summary of Vagbhata I. The following 
examples may be quoted : the form jatrurdhva occurs in Sutra 
Sthdna, chap. XXIX (vol. I, p. 153, 1. 14), and chap. XXXVI, 
(vol. I, p. 176, 1. 19) ; Niddna Sthdna, chap. XV (vol. I, p. 304, 
1. 5), and Uttara Sthdna, chap. XXXVI (vol. II, p. 315, 1. 21), 
quoted by Vagbhata II in his Compendium {Astdnga Brdaya), 
Sutra Sthdna, chap. XX, verse 17; chap. XXVII, verse 11; 
Niddna Sthdna, chap. XVI, verse 22; Uitara Sthd7ia,ch.Si'^. XXXI, 


§ 6.2] THE WINDPIPE 163 

verse 16 (in 1st ed., vol. I, pp. 373, 433, 842 ; vol. II, p. 681). 
The other form urdhva-jatru occurs in the Compendinm of 
Vagbhata II, Sutra StJidna, chap. XX, verse 1 (vol. I, p. 368), 
where he refers to urdhva-jatru-vikdra, that is, ' diseases affecting 
the body upwards from the neck.' The commentary of Aruna- 
datta here explains the phrase to refer to ' headache and similar 
diseases '. (For the original texts of the passages quoted above, 
see § 98.) 

5. We will now turn to the commentators. Susruta, speaking 
about hiccough in the passage above quoted, mentions jatnc-nmla, 
the base of the neck. His statement is quoted by Madhava in 
the seventh verse of the twelfth chapter of his Niddna (Jiv. ed., 
p. 105). Vijaya Rakshita, commenting on this statement, quotes 
the explanations of Jaijjata and Gayadasa, two of the oldest 
commentators on the Compendium of Susruta. Jaijjata explains 
jatru-miila to be kanth-orasoh sandhih, that is, the junction of the 
throat with the breast-bone.^ This shows that he understood 
jatru to be synonymous with kantha, throat, and to denote the 
anterior part of the neck {grlvd-purohlidga). Gayadasa explains 
jatm-mula by gnvd-mula, base of the cervical column, which 
shows that by him jatru was understood to be a synonym of 
grivd, neck. Again Chakrapanidatta (c. 1070 A.D.), in his 
Bhdmimati commentary on Susruta, explains the phrase jatruna 
urdhvam in Susruta I. 7, (Jiv.ed., p. 71, top line), by hanu-sandJiau, 
' at the point of junction of the jaw (apparently the temporo- 
mandibular articulation).' This shows that he also took j'afrti to 
denote the throat [kantJia). Again Dallana, in his commentary 
on Susruta, IV. 1, verse 139 (Jiv. ed., p. 644), explains ^a^^r?^ by 
vakso- msaf/ok saudZ/l, the point of junction of the breast-bone and 
clavicle, which points to the base of the neck. In fact, in his 
comments on Susruta, I. 23, clause 2 (Jiv. ed., p. 91, top line), as 
well as on Susruta, I. 21, clause 30 (Jiv. ed., p. 86, 1. 20), he 
explicitly identifies Jatru with grWd-mula, the base of the neck. 
Again Arunadatta in his comments on Vagbhata II's Astdnga 

^ Dallana, in his commentary, also quotes that explanation. But 
Jiv. ed.,p. 1249, reads it falsely Jcaks-orasoh sandhih, junction of the 
armpit with the breast-bone, which makes no sense. 

M 2 


Hnlai/a, I. 20, vevse 1 (in 1st ed., vol. I, p. 368), repeats the 
explanation of Dallana that jatru signifies vakso-msayoh sandhi, 
the articulation of breast-bone and clavicle. This definition is 
noteworthy as it modifies the meaning- of jatru, which is no 
longer the throat or neck, but the base of the neck, and, for the 
first time, brings it into connexion with the clavicles. (For the 
original text of the passages, see § 98.) 

6. The writers hitherto discussed are all medical. It will be 
observed that they never use the dual number with reference to 
jairv, as they would do if they were thinking of the pair of 
clavicles. They always use the singular number, indicating 
a single bone. Their evidence, on the whole, is uniformly and 
clearly in favour o^ jatru denoting in a general way the neck, or 
more particularly the throat, that is, the anterior part of the 
neck {firwd-purohhaga), in short the windpipe. In the list of 
Susruta (§ 27) jatru does not occur at all, but it enumerates the 
pair of bones, gr^va. and kantlianddl, the cervical column and the 
windpipe. The list of Charaka (§ 4), on the other hand, does 
not name kantlianddl, but gives the pair grivd and jatru. It is 
obvious that Susruta 's kanthanddl must be identical with 
Charaka's jatrti, and that both those terms denote the same 
organ, that is, the windjjipe. 

7. Turning now to the non-medical evidence, we have the 
earliest in the Vedas. Here we find in the Rigveda, VIII. l^^^ 

jatrtt used in the plural number: 7;7«'a jatrtihliya dtrdah, i.e. 
' before making an incision in the costal cartilages.' So also in 
Rigveda, XI. 3^**, antrdni jatravaJi, i. e. 'the entrails are (repre- 
sented by) the costal cartilages.' Whatever ehejatr?/ may mean, 
it can in these two passages not denote the clavicles, of which 
there are only two, and which would be expressed by the dual 
number. The plui-al excludes any reference to the clavicles. 
The meaning oi jatru in the plural, however, is clearly indicated 
in a later Vedic work, the Sataj)atka Brdhnana. It says (§ 42, 
cl. 4), 'the ribs are fastened at either end, exteriorly to the 
thoracic vertebrae, and interiorly to the costal cartilages {jatru).' 
It even mentions their number to be sixteen (§ 42, cl. 3), 'there 
are eight costal cartilages [jatru) on the one side, and eight on 
the other ; the sternum is the seventeenth (bone of the breast).' 

§ 62] THE WINDPIPE 165 

At the same time, it may be noted that Sayana, in his great com- 
mentary on the Rigveda, commenting on the first of the two 
above-quoted passages, ex^Xoins, jatrubhi/ah by gnvdbhyah. He, 
therefore, took j'airu to mean the neck {gnvd). If his interpreta- 
tion should be preferred, it mig-ht refer to the cartilaginous ring-s 
of the trachea of which there are from sixteen to twenty (Fig. 
24). But the important point is that in the opinion of Sayana 
jatni does not denote the clavicles. In the Epics and Puranas, 
jatni seems to have always the meaning of the anterior part of 
the neck or the throat. Thus Mahdbhdrata, III. 713, jatrudese 
vgavdsulat, i. e. he fell on his throat ; and Bliagavat Vurdna^^YW. 
\V^^, jatrdv<-atddayatf he struck him in the throat. The singular 
number shows that the clavicles are not intended. Again, in 
Edmdi/ana, I. 1^" and V. 32^^ we find the phrase drdha-jatru, and 
in BJiagavat Ptirdna, 1. 19^^, the phrase nigudha-jatnt, both mean- 
ing ' strong-necked ', in the description of a hero. Here, indeed, 
the late commentators Ramanuja and Sridhara expressly inter- 
pret jatrn of the two clavicles, using that word in the dual 
number. Thus Ramanuja on Udmdyana, 1. 1^^, says : Jatrunl vakso- 
'msa-sandJii-gate adJiini^ i. e. ' The two clavicles are the two bones 
which constitute the connexion between the breast (sternum) and 
the shoulder (acromion).' Similarly Sridhara, commenting on 
Bhagavat Pnrdna, I. 19^^, says : Kanthasya adho-hlidgayoh sthite 
astliinl jatrunl, i. e. ' The two clavicles are the two bones which 
are situated on both sides of the lower part of the throat.' But 
though in these explanations Ramanuja and Sridhara have 
obviously in view the traditional medical definition of jatru, as 
above quoted from the commentaries of Dallana and Arunadatta, 
they understand that definition in the false sense to which, as 
we shall see below, the celebrated Indian dictionary, the Amara- 
kosa, had given currency. Anyhow, in the passages of the 
Epics and Puranas, commented on by them, the most natural 
interpretation of jatru is that it means the throat or windpipe. 

8. In the Non-medical Version (§ 16) of the statement on the 
skeleton, as found in the Law-book of Yajnavalkya and in the 
Institutes of Vishnu, jatm clearly has the meaning of windpipe, 
for it explicitly says that there is a &mg\e jatru. It is true that 
the text of Yajnavalkya, published by Professor Stenzler (p. 89), 


xQdidiQ jatrv^-ekaikam , whichj of couvse, can onh" mean 'one collar- 
bone on either side \ that is, two collar-bones. But, as may be 
seen from the evidence set out in § 77, the true manuscript 
reading \s jatrv-^ekam ca, that is ' and one windpipe '. It is unfor- 
tunate that the editors and translators of two legal treatises 
allowed themselves to be misled by the ill-considered explana- 
tions of the legal commentators (§ 20) into ascribing to those 
treatises the doctrine ihaijatru referred to the two clavicles. 

9. So far as the matter can be traced at present, the first, and 
really the sole, authority for interpreting jatrw of the clavicles 
is the Amarakosa, an ancient Sanskrit dictionary written by 
Amara Sirhha, probably in the seventh century a.d. In that 
work, after explaining the word amsa to be a synonym of bhija- 
hras, or head of the arm, Amara Simha proceeds to say (II. 6^^), 
Sand/il tas7/a eva jafrnm, i.e. 'The two junctions of that {amsa, 
or head of the ami) are the two collar-bones.' Though not very 
clearly expressed, it is yet clear from the context and the dual 
number that, in explaining the word jatru, he was thinking of 
the two clavicles. His idea seems to have been that jatru was 
the name of the two bones which run horizontally across the 
body from one ' head of the arai ' (or acromion process) to the 
other, connecting them with each other and with the base of 
the neck (Fig. 4). How this idea originated is not exactly 
known; but the following explanation may be suggested. It 
seems to be a misunderstanding of the two anatomical terms 
amsa, collar-bone, and sand/ti,'^o\nt or articulation. The former, 
as stated already, is intei-preted by Amara Simha to mean ' the 
head of the arm ' {bituj a-siras) ^ — a term which e^^dently is the 
popular, though inexact, equivalent of the anatomical term 
amsa-kuta, peak of the shoulder (acromion process, § 55, 
cl. 5). It is possible that this interpretation was suggested to 
Amara Simha by the peculiar use of the term amsa in the 

^ Hemachandra (c. 1140 a.d.) in his well-known dictionary called 
Abhidhdna Chintdmani, adopts Amara Siiiiha's interpretations. In 
Section V, verse 588, he saj-s aihso bhuja-irrah skandho jatru sandhir- 
uro-'msagah, i. e. amsa or skandha is the head of the arm, and jatru is 
the connecting bone between sternum (ui-as) and the head of the arm 


osteological summary of Vagbhata I.^ In that summary^ as 
shown in §§ 39^ cl. 4, and 56^ cl. 2, amsa occurs by the side of 
aksaka, clavicle, and amsa-phalaka, shoulder-blade, and therefore, 
if it has any specialized meaning-, it can mean only the peak 
of the shoulder, or the head of the arm. Having once adopted 
this interpretation, Amara Simha was naturally led, by the 
traditional medical definition o^ jatru, to the fm-ther misinter- 
pretation of the latter term. That definition (as reported by 
Dallana and Arunadatta, ante, cl. 4) was that jatno signified 
vakso 'msaT/oh sandhi, that is, the sterno-clavicu.lar articulation. 
But Amara Simha, having taken amsa to mean the head of the 
arm, was of necessity driven to interpret the term sandhi to 
signify ' a connecting bone ', and the definition in question 
to mean that jatru signified the clavicle, because it was the 
connecting' bone {sandhi) between the sternum (vaksas) and the 
head of the arm (aihsa).'^ But this is not in accordance with 
anatomical usage : in the latter, aihsa signifies the collar-bone, 
and sandhi, an articulation, that is, the connexion between two 
contiguous bones. The two terms do not signify, respectively, 
the summit of the shoulder, and a joint in the sense of a bone 
that lies between two articulations and connects two other bones. 
The true anatomical definition of Jatru is that it is the sterno- 
clavicular articulation, or, as it is also sometimes, though less 
technically, expressed, the base of the neck (r/nvd mula). Outside 
the medical schools, the false interpretation oi jatru, ap2:>arently 
started by the Amarakosa, that it meant the two clavicles, 
succeeded in winning general acceptance, so much so that its 
original and real meaning is, at the present day, practically lost 
sight of. 

10. To sum up : from the foregoing discussion the conclusion 

^ This seems to me the more probable view, though pending the 
exact determiuatiou of the date of Amara Simha and VSgbhata I, the 
question of priority — assuming that there was any interdependence — 
must remain uncertain. 

■ The natural corollary of giving to amsa and jatru the meaning of 
' head of the arm ' and ' collai'-bone ' respectively is that amsa-kuta 
and aksaka become supeifluous ; and, as a fact, both those words are 
omitted in the Amarakosa. 


suggests itself that the original meaning of the word jatni may 
have been ' immature bone ' or cartilage. Originally the word 
was used to denote the cartilaginous portions of the neck and 
breast, that is, the windpipe and the costal cartilages. In the 
Vedas it still has this undefined meaning. In the medical text- 
books its use is limited to the cartilaginous jwrtion of the neck, 
i.e. the windpipe (Charaka), and hence, either to the neck 
generally, or to the sterno-clavicular articulation at the base 
of the neck (Susruta). At a comparatively late date (sixth or 
seventh century A.D.), and in general literature, owing to a mis- 
interpretation of the anatomical terms sandhi and aihsa, it was 
made to mean clavicle. 

^63. Cranial Bones 

1. Sir as, cranium or brain-case ; firah-hapdla, cranial pan -shaped 
bone. These two terms are employed in all the three lists, 
which differ only in respect of the number of the bones. While 
Charaka (§ 4) counts four, Susruta (§ 27) counts six bones ; and 
Vagbhata I (§ 37) adopts the count of Susruta. 

2. The brain-case or cranium is a hemispheroidal, oval box, 
made up of eight bones, namely the frontal, the two parietal, the 
two temporal, the occipital, the sphenoid and the ethmoid (Figs, 
25, 26). Nearly the whole of it, viz. the entire vault and the 
larger portion of the base, is externally visible : the remainder of 
the latter lies internally within the skull. The externally visible 
portion of the cranium comprises six bones, the frontal, the two 
temporal, the two parietal, and the occipital. The interior, 
invisible portion comprises two bones, the sphenoid and the 
ethmoid. These two interior bones, including the small portion 
of the sphenoid, which shows externally by the side of the 
frontal (Fig. 25), were not known to the Indian anatomists. 
As pointed out in § 45, cl. 3, their method of dissection would 
not enable them to discover them ; and so far as the two cranial 
surfaces of the sphenoid bone (Fig. 32) are concerned, they do 
not seem to have recognized theii* existence as separate from the 
frontal bone and as belonging to the sphenoid. In all probability 



\ §63] 

they took them to be but continuations of the contiguous 
frontal bone. As to the temporal bones, they are peculiarly 
liable to detachment from the rest of the bony case ; and it 
may have been for this reason that they were separately 
enumerated by the Indian anatomists ; they are dealt with 

Fig. 25. 
Profile of the Skull. From the riffht. 

Showing— Fr. = Frontal bone % 

Pa. = Parietal „ ( Slrah-kapdla. 
Oc. = Occipital ,, \ 
Tm. = Temporal, Saiikhaka. 
Sp. = Sphenoid. 

E. = Ethmoid (in inner wall of orbit). 
Ma. = Malar, Gandakuta. 
N. = Nasal, Ndsikci. 
S. Mx. = Superior maxillary \ 
I. Mx. = Inferior maxillary ) 

in the next paragraph. There remain only fom* bones, the 
frontal, the two parietal, and the occipital ; and there can be no 
doubt that it is these four bones which are referred to in the list 
of Charaka as ' the four pan-shaped bones of the cranium '. They 
are more or less decidedly concave bones, and therefore are rightly 
described as pan-shaped (Figs. 27, 38). 



[§ 63 

3. The list of Susruta substitutes six pan-shaped bones in the 
place of the four bones of Charaka. In order to understand this 

Fig. 26. 

Outline of Base of Skull. 

Viewed from below. 

Showing— Oc. = Occipital. Mx. = Superior maxillary. 

Pa. - Parietal. Ma. = Malar. 
Tm. -- Temporal. P. = Palate. 

Sph. = Sphenoid. E. = Ethmoid (not visible). 

Fig. 27. 


Frontal Bone, Sirah-kapdla. 
Internal Surface, showing frontal crest a. 




difference we must remember that Susruta's osteological system 
is strictly dominated by the principle of homology (§ 28), accord- 
ing to which the skeleton is considered as consisting of two 
lateral halves divided by a mesial plane running through the 
vertebral column. This plane cuts the frontal and occipital bones 
into two halves. As a matter of fact, these two bones consist of 
two halves, indicated by the frontal and occipital crests respec- 
tively (Figs. 27 and 28). In the case of the occipital bone, it is 
true, the two halves coalesce into one from the beginning of 






■^1 --'■•|.. '■''•.,. 'i' '''■'•'■■iin,!!;-''''MI''i!*l,iu O. 


Fig. 28. 
The Occipital Bone, Sirah-kapdla. 
Internal Surface, showing occipital crest a, o. 

embryonic development ; but in the case of the frontal bone 
they remain separated by the metojnc suture, and do not become 
fused till about the fifth or sixth year after birth. In fact, 
traces of the metopic sutm-e persist throughout life between the 
two superciliary ridges of the frontal bone ; and in a certain 
percentage (about 8 per cent.) of individuals even the whole of it 
persists in the adult ^ (Figs. 29, 32). Either of the two halves of 
the frontal and occipital bones forms a separate cavity, divided 
by their respective crests (Figs. 27 and 28). Thus Susruta is 

' I am indebted to Professor Arthur Thomson for the suggestion of 
this explanation. 




justified in counting- ' six pan-shaped bones of the cranium', these 
being, on his principle of division, two frontal, two parietal, and 
two occipital. In fact in this particular, his system marks an 
advance on that of Atreya-Charaka, inasmuch as it shows Susruta's 
acquaintance wath the existence of the metopic suture. He had, 
no doubt, observed its surviving traces between the superciliary 

b ^^"^ ^ b 
Fig. 29. 

Frontal Bone^ Simh-kapala. 

Anterior view, showing — a. Metopic suture. 

b, b. Superciliary ridges. 

ridges, and may even have noticed the exceptional occurrence of 
a 'metopic skull'. The division of the occipital bone into two 
halves, however, was the natural resultant of his homological 

§ 64. Continuation : the Temples 

1. Sao'ikJia, temple ; mnkhaka, temporal bone. The latter form 
of the term is found only in the Non-medical Version (§ 16), 
though, of course, there is no real difference of meaning between 
the two terms. 

2. All the three lists give the number of the temporal bones 
as two. Susruta, moreover, rightly classes them among the 
pan-shaped {kapdla) bones (§ 30). They are, without any douljt 


identical with the two temporal bones which are recognized also 
by modern Anatomy as bones of the cranium, one on either side 
(Figs. 25, 26). 

§ 65. Facial Bones : Maxillaries 

1. Hatw, jaw; Jianv-asthi, jaw-bone, or chin; hanu-mula- 
landliana, bond, or tie-bone, at the base, or back, of the jaw ; 
hann-cit^a, pile or structure of the jaws. The term hamc properly 
means simply a jaw, and ordinarily may indicate both, the upper as 
well as the lower jaw. But it is in the treatment of these bones, 
as well as of the other bones of the face which are discussed 
in the next paragraph, that the second of the most striking 
differences (for the first, see § 59, el. 3) between the systems 
of Atreya-Charaka and Susruta discloses itself. The difference, 
stated briefly and roughly, is that the system of Atreya-Charaka 
(§ 4) recognizes the existence of only one jaw, viz. the lower, 
while the system of Susruta includes two jaws, the lower and 
the upper. Accordingly, in the former system, the term hanv- 
astJd signifies the bone (or 'body') of the lower jaw, and 
particularly its more prominent portion, the chin, while the 
term Jiami-mula-ba7idha7ia signifies the two attachments (or 
' rami ') at the base, or back, of the lower jaw. In the list of 
Vagbhata I (§ 37) there occurs only the term hanu-bandhana, 
jaw-attachment, which is used in a loose way as synonymous 
with simple Iimm, jaw (see § 38, cl. 6). The term lianu-citya is 
peculiar to the Atharva Veda (§ 43), 

2. Susruta's way of counting the jaw-bones agrees generally 
with that of modern Anatomy. The two maxillaries really consist 
each of two bones, but their two lateral halves are so intimately 
united by harmonic sutures that they are counted each as 
a single bone. In the same way Susruta counts two hanu or 
jaw-bones, which, therefore, practically correspond to the maxil- 
laries. Atreya-Charaka, on the other hand, does not recognize 
the existence of a maxillary as a single bone. He divides either 
of them horizontally into a number of separate bones (Figs. 31 
and 32). The superior maxillary (Fig. 30) consists of two parts, 
the body and certain processes. The chief of the latter are, (1) 


the palatine process which forms the hard palate {tdht or tdlumka), 
and which is counted by both Atreya-Charaka and Susruta as 
a separate bone (§ 67) ; and (2) the alveolar process which con- 
tains sockets of the teeth. This alveolar process, toOj is counted 
as a separate bone, but by Atreya-Charaka alone, who calls it 
dant-oluklmla, or tooth-socket bone. As to the 'body' of the 
superior maxillary, it would appear that Atreya-Charaka looked 
upon it as being continuous with and forming part of the malar 
bones (§ 66). In the system of Atreya-Charaka, therefore, there 

Fig. 30. 
Superior Maxillary, Hanu. From below. 

«, a. Palatine process, or hard palate, Tdlmaka. 

b, b. Alveolar process, Dant-oUtkhala. 

c, c. Body of maxillary. 

is practically no superior maxillary. It is replaced by three 
bones, (1) the hard palate {tdlusaka, § 67) ; (2) superior alveolar 
process, or tooth-socket bone {d.ant-olukhala, § 68);^ (3) the malar 
bone, of which the ' body ' of the maxillary forms a part (Fig. 32). 
On the other hand, the system of Susruta, consequent on its 
recognizing a superior maxillary bone {hanu), does not admit any 
separate tooth-socket bone. At the same time Susruta's hanu, 
or upper jaw-bone, does not fully correspond to the superior 
maxillary, because of its excluding the palatine process, which 
Susruta (equally with Atreya-Charaka) counts as a separate bone 
{tdlu, § 67). 

^ That is, strictly, the set of thirty-two superior tooth-socket bones. 




3. The inferior maxillary (Fig. 31) is a large, strong, horse- 
shoe-shaped bone, which consists of a nearly horizontal body, 
and two posterior vertical portions, or rami. The body itself 
consists of three portions, the alveolar process above, the base 
beneath, and the mental j)rotuberanee, or chin, in front. The 
whole of this inferior maxillary is counted as a single bone by 
Susruta, and constitutes his other hanu, or jaw-bone. Atreya- 
Charaka, on the other hand, treats it as consisting of four bones : 
(1) the alveolar process ((lant-olukliala) \ (2) the base with the 
cl)in, which he calls hanv-asthi, or jaw-bone (chin-bone) ; (3) and 

Fig. 31. 

Inferior Maxillary, Hanu. Seen from the left. 

Showing — a. The base of the body, Haiw-asthi. 
h, b. The rami, Ilanu-mula-handhana. 
r. Alveolar process, Dant-oUikhala. 
d. Mental protuberance, or chin, Ilanv-as/hl. 

(4) the two Y&mi, which he calls hanu-mula-bandhana, bonds at 
the root, or back, of the jaw-bone. He calls the rami by this 
name on account of their being the l^ones by which the ' body ' 
of the lower jaw is attached to the rest of the skull. 

4. To sum up : irrespective of the hard palate, which both 
Atreya-Charaka and Susruta count separately, the list of Susruta 
represents the two maxillaries by two hanu^ or jaw-bones, while 
the list of Charaka breaks them up into — (1) two alveolar pro- 
cesses {uluk/iala), (2) one (lower) jaw-bone {hanv-asthi), (3) two 
rami {hann-niula-hanclhana\ and (4) probably a portion of his 
peculiar central facial bone (§ 66). This is shown in the sub- 
joined tabular statement : 




Modern Anatomy. 

/ 1 . palatal 
Sup. Max.. 2. alveolar 

(3. body 

Inf. Max. 

f\. alveolar 

2. base 

3. chin 

1 4. ranai 




facial bone 
(K, fig. 32) 


]- hanvasthi 



1st hanu 

-2nd hanu 

Vagbhata II. 



1st hanu- 


1 2nd hanu- 
\ bandhana 

5. The system of Vag-bhata I represents, as visual, a com- 
promise between the two systems of Atreya-Charaka and 
Susruta. From the latter he adopts the two hanu or jaw-bones, 
and from the former the two dant-olukhala , or tooth-sockets. 
In the maiuj therefore, inasmuch as he holds not one, but two 
jaw-bones or maxillaries, he is a follower of Susruta ; but as 
a concession to the doctrine of Atreya-Charaka, he divides each 
maxillaiy into two separate bones, viz. its alveolar process {dant- 
olukhala) and its body {Iianu-handhana), the latter including, 
in the case of the inferior maxillary, its two rami. Another 
concession to that system appears to be Vag-bhata's use of the 
term hanu-handhana, instead of the simpler Susrutiyan term hami. 
It seems probable that Vagbhata I failed to understand the 
sig-nificance of the word mula in the Charakiyan term hanu- 
mvla-handhana , bond at the base, or back, of the jaw. That word 
rrnders the term applicable only to the lower jaw-bone, and 
signifies its two rami, by which it is attached to the rest of the 
skull. The omission of the word mnla shows that Vagbhata I 
understood the term hanu-handhana to be applicable to both 
jaw-bones, and to indicate that the jaw-bones were attachments 
of the skull. In his system, therefore, the term hanu-bandhana 
is a mere descriptive synonym of the simpler term hanu (§ 38, 
el. 6). 

6. The system of the Atharva Veda (§ 43) appears to be 
essentially the same as that of Atreya-Charaka. This seems to 


be indicated by its term Iianvoli citya^ or structure (pile) of the 
two jaws, inasmuch as that term points to the view of the jaw 
being- a composite organ built up, as Atreya-Charaka holds, of 
the separate bones which he calls dant-olukhala, alveolar process, 
hanv-astJd, ^ar^-hoTXQ, and hatm-niula-band/iana, two rami. 

§66. Continuation: Malar and Nasal Bones, 
Snperciliary Ridges 

1. Nclsd ovndsikd, nose, nasal bone; gam] a, cheek, cheek-bone, 
malar bone ; ganda-kuta, or hana-kilta, malar prominence; laldta, 
brow or superciliary ridge ; kakdtikd, denoting the combined nasal 
and malar bones. The last term is peculiar to the Atharva Veda. 
The term laldta is only found in the several versions of the 
system of Atreya (§§ 4, 12, 16), and in the Atharva Veda (§ 43). 
The term hanu-kuta is peculiar to the list of Bheda (§ 12) ; 
Charaka prefers the term ganda-kiita, and Susruta, its shorter 
alternative ganda. 

2. Beside the two maxillary bones which have been discussed 
in the preceding paragraph, and the palatal bones which will be 
discussed in the next paragraph, the face of the skeleton (Fig. 32) 
comprises the following- bones : two malar, two nasal, two lach- 
rymal, two inferior turbinated, and one vomer. Of these bones 
the five last-mentioned are very small, and lie in the interior of 
the skull. It cannot, therefore, surprise us that they escaped the 
observation of the ancient Indian anatomists. The only bones 
w^hich, forming a portion of the external skull, came under their 
notice, are the malar and nasal bones of the cheek {ganda) and 
nose [ndsd or nds/kd) respectively. But regarding- the nature of 
these bones, and, in fact (as already stated in § 65, cl. 1), regard- 
ing the structure of the face generally, the opinions of Atreya- 
Charaka and Susruta differ very considerably. It is on this 
point that the two systems show one of their two most striking 
divergences (for the other see § 59, cl. 3). 

3. In the systems of Atreya-Charaka (§ 4) those four bones, the 
two malar {ganda-knfa) and the two nasal (udsikd), are considered 
as forming, together with the two superciliary ridges, or brows 
[laldta), a single continuous central lone which lies across the 






middle of the face of the skull, bounded by the frontal bone 
above, the alveolar process of the superior maxillary below, and 
the two temporal bones on either side. The conflg-uration of this 
central bone, and its position in the face, are indicated by dotted 

Fig. 32. 
Anterior View of Skull. 

Showing, within dotted lines, the central facial bone (K, L, M, N). 

Fr. - Frontal bone \ 
P. = Parietal bone I Sirah-kapdla. 
S. = Sphenoid bone J 
T. = Temporal bone, Sankhaka. 
L. = Superciliary ridges, Laldta. 
N. = Nasal bones, iVrtSi'A'w. 
M. = Malar bones, Gmida-kuta. 
K. = Body of superior maxillary, Kakdfikd. 
A. = Alveolar process, dant-olukhala. 

lines in Fig-. 32. It will be seen from it that the central facial 
bone must include also the ' body ' of the superior maxillary, 
which appears to have been looked upon as forming- a con- 
tinuous whole with the contiguous cheek or malar bones {ganfia, 


or gamla-kuta). A more exj)eriencetl anatomist, such as Susruta 
was, could not fail to see that what was supposed to be an undi- 
vided central bone w^as in reality a very composite structure, 
made up partly .of a number of separate small bones, partly of 
portions of the bones contiguous to the hypothetical central bone. 
The former are the two malar bones and the two nasal bones, 
which accordingly Susiuta counted separately in his list (§ 27). 
The latter are (1) the superciliary ridges which form merely two 
prominent portions of the frontal bone, and (2) the lower part of 
the hypothetical central bone which forms really the ' body ' of the 
superior maxillary. Consequently Susruta altogether omitted 
the two superciliary ridges, or brows {laldta), from his list, while 
he included (as shown in § 65) the lower part of the central bone 
in one — the upper — of his two jaw-bones {haim). With regard 
to the nose, including its cartilaginous portion, Susruta counted 
three bones. In accordance with his homological principle, he 
took the two nasal bones as constituting a single bone in the 
median line, and added the two lateral cartilages of the external 
nostrils. That he included the latter is proved by the fact of his 
enumerating the nose [ghrdna) among* the tender bones (taruna) : 
see the class-list of the bones in § 30. 

4. As to Vagbhata I, he follows his usual practice of compro- 
mise. With Susruta he holds the separate existence of two 
nasal, two malar, and two maxillary bones, and with Atreya- 
Charaka the separate existence of the sujoerior alveolar process. 
In the main, therefore, his system agrees with the system of 
Susruta, the only difference being that (as already pointed out in 
§ 65, cl. 5) he divides the superior maxillary horizontally into 
two separate bones, an upper and a loW'Cr, the upper being the 
' body ' {liaHU-hanilhana), and the lower the alveolar process 
{(lant-oltikltala), that is, K and A in Fig-. 32. It is a difference 
which indicates a distinct decadence in anatomical knowledge. 

5. Atreya-Charaka's hypothesis of a single, undivided central 
bone, as reported by Charaka (§ 4), though erroneous, has at 
least the merit of presenting a consistent view of the structure 
of the face. In itself, the traditional text of Bheda's report (§ 12) 
of that hypothesis need not necessarily involve an inconsistency. 
It makes Atreya hold three central bones, constituting the nose, 

N 2 


the cheeks, and the brows respectiveh'. On referring to Fig. 32, 
it will be seen that the nasal bones might easily be taken to 
form a single bone ; and the two superciliary ridges, irrespective 
of the metopic suture, do form a single bone (of the brow, laldta). 
With respect to the two malar bones (including the ' body ' of 
the superior maxillar}^) there would be eorae difficulty by reason 
of the nasal aperture ; still, the extension of the bones down- 
wards being undefined, they might, at a pinch, be taken to con- 
stitute a single bone. But, as has been shown in § 13, cl. 4, 
Bheda's account of the system of Atreya cannot be correct, because 
it works out the incorrect total 362, instead of 360. It is 
probable, therefore, that the traditional text of that account is 
corrupted, and that the genuine list of Bheda agreed with that of 
Charaka in counting a single undivided central bone of the face. 
In confirmation of this view the curious fact should be noted 
that the traditional text of the list of Bheda substitutes the 
term Jiami-kilta, lit. prominence of the jaw, for the term ganda- 
hiita, 2)rominence of the cheek, in order to indicate the malar 
bone. It has been pointed out above that in Atreya's view of 
the structure of the face the ' body ' of the superior maxillary 
forms an extension of the malar bones. Hence, in itself, the 
malar prominence might be correctly described by either of 
the two terms, gaiula-kuta, prominence of the cheek, or hauu-kuta, 
prominence^ of the (upper) jaw. But the difficulty is that the 
system of Atreya knows no more than one /ianu, and that that 
/tami is the inferior maxillary (see § 65), while the term hami- 
kiiAa would introduce a reference to the superior maxillary, and 
thus be inconsistent with the system of Atreya. For this reason 
it is j)ractically certain that the word Iiami-kuta in the traditional 
text of Bheda is a false reading for ganda-kuta. The case of the 
Non-medical Version of the system of Atreya is still more un- 
satisfactory. That version counts four central bones in the place 
of the single central bone of Charaka; viz. one each for the 
nose, brows, cheeks, and eyes (§ 16, also § 17, cl. 4). Referring 
again to Figure 32, it may be seen that that count represents 
an impossible view of the structure of the face. The brows, or 
superciliary ridges, as above explained, do, indeed, form a single 
bone ; so might the two nasal bones, and the two malar bones ; 

§67] HARD PALATE 181 

but how the two eyes (or eyeballs) should form but a single 
bone is not conceivable. This only proves how little the system 
of Atreya was understood by the author of the Non-medical 
Version, and how deficient was his knowledge of anatomy — 
a circumstance, however, hardly surprising in a writer who was 
not an expert in medicine but in law. 

6. The system presented in the Atharva Veda (§ 43) agrees in 
the main with that of Atreya- Charaka. The central facial bone 
of the latter system appears in the Atharva Veda divided into 
two portions, an upper and a lower. The upper portion consists 
of the two superciliary ridges, and is called laidta, or the brow. 
The lower portion comprises the body of the suj)erior maxillary 
together with the malar and nasal bones, and is called kakdtikd. 

§ 67. The Hard Palate 

1. Tdlu, palate ; tdlumka, palatal cavity. The former term is 
used by Susruta (§ 27) and Vagbhata (37). The latter is peculiar 
to the system of Atreya, and is found in the lists of Charaka 
(§ 4) and Bheda (§ 12) as well as in its Non-medical Version (§ 16). 

2. Both Atreya-Charaka and Susruta enumerate two jDalate 
bones in their lists ; but these bones are not identical with what 
are called the palate bones in modern anatomy. The latter being 
very small bones, situated in the interior of the skull, do not 
appear to have been observed as separate bones by the ancient 
Indian anatomists. The two bones which the latter call palate 
bones are identical with the so-called palatine process^ which is 
a portion of the superior maxillary bone (Fig. 30). This process 
consists of halves, which, projecting from either side of the junc- 
tion of the alveolar process and ' body ' of the superior maxillary, 
meet in the median line, in a ridge or raphe, and thus form 
the roof of the mouth, or what is the major portion of the hard 
palate,^ These halves of the hard palate form two shallow 
concavities ; and it is these, no doubt, which Atreya-Charaka 
appropriately denotes by the term tdlmaka, or palatal cavity, 
and which Susruta, in his class-list of the bones (§ 30) 
describes as being kajulla, or pan-shaped. From this point of 
view those two medical authorities are quite correct in counting. 

' See Dr. Gerrish's Textbook of Anatomy, 2iid ed., pp. 195, 717. 


in their lists, two palates [tain) or two palatal conca\dties 
{tdkimka). Yagbhata I, who ig-nores the median ridge, counts 
only one palate {tdln). 

§ 68. The Teeth and their Sockets 

1. Danfa, tooth ; dant-olv.khala, tooth-socket, or sfhdla, socket, 
or siihma, minute bone. The term dant-olvMala for the socket ot 
a tooth occurs in the Medical Version of the system of Atreva, as 
reported by Charaka (§ 4) and Bheda (§ 12), and adopted by 
Vagbhata I (§ 37), while the other two terms, dhcda and siikma, 
are peculiar to the Non-medical Version (§§ 16, 22, cl. 4), 

2. The term dant-olukJiala, or tooth-socket^ denotes the alveolar 
processes. These processes are, in reality, only portions of the 
maxillary bones ; but Atreya-Charaka, with whom Vagbhata I 
agrees, counts them as separate bones — a procedure which affects 
his general view of the two maxillaries, fully explained in § 65. 
Susruta, in consequence of his counting the maxillaries as a pair 
of single, undivided bones, discards the socket-bones altogether 
from his list (§ 27) and counts only the teeth. 

3. With reference to the number of the teeth {danta) Atreya- 
Charaka and Susruta agree. Both state them correctly to 
number thirty-two. Atreya-Charaka goes even so far as to 
count a corresponding number of sockets. Accordingly he 
divides either alveolar process into thii-ty-two alveoli, each of 
which is counted, in his list (§ 4), as a sej^arate bone. 

4. As to the real morphological character of the teeth, the 
ancient Indian anatomists, of course, were uninformed. The}" 
took them to be bone, on account, obviously, of their hardness, 
and probably also of their white appearance, and because they 
were found to remain in the skull after every vestige of other 
tissue had disappeared. As a matter of fact, they ' resemble 
com2:)act bone in appearance and in composition V jet in reality 
they are more closely allied to the hair. For both are modifica- 
tions of a papilla of the outer integument of the body. The 
tooth, 'though intimately connected with the bony skeleton, is 
really a calcified jDapilla of the mucous membrane.' ^ 

^ See Dr. Potter's Compend of Human Anatomy, p. 142, and 
Dr. Gerrish's Textbook of Anatomy, 2nd ed., ^. 723. 

§§ 69, 70] NAILS AND EYEBALLS . 183 

} 69. The Nails 

Nakha, nail. The case of the nails is similar to that of the 
teeth. They, like the teeth, are allied to the hair, heing modifica- 
tions of the cutaneous membrane. The ancient Indian anato- 
mists looked upon the nails as a waste product {mala) of the 
body secreted in the process of growth of the bones. Con- 
sistently with this theor}^ Susruta excludes the nails from his 
count of the bones (§ 27). On the other hand, Atreya, rather 
inconsistently as the commentator Chakrapanidatta indicates 
{ante, p. 35), includes them in his list of bones ; and, of course, 
as all the three versions of his system (Charaka, § 4, Bheda, 
§ 12, Non-medical, §§ 16, 22) state, he counts twenty of them, 
one for each iino'er and each toe. 


$ 70. The Eyeballs 

1. Ahi-kom, ej^eball. The organ denoted by this term is 
included among the bones only in the system of Susruta. The 
system of Atreya, as reported in the Medical Versions of Charaka 
(§ 4) and Bheda (§ 12), does not include them, and in this respect 
it is followed by Vagbhata I (§ 37). In the Non-medical 
Version (§ 16), it is true, the eyeballs are included in Atreya's 
system ; but its testimony cannot avail against that of the 
Medical Versions ; and the probability is that it adopted the eye- 
balls under the influence of the system of Susruta (§ 17, cl. 3). 
But even as regards the latter system, the eyeballs have experi- 
enced strange vicissitudes. For they are absent from Susruta's 
Hst in its Traditional Recension (§ 27), though Susruta explicitly 
mentions them in his class-list of the bones as well as in other 
passages of his Compendium. That his list in. its genuine form 
(§ 34) must have included them has been shown in § 30, cl. 4. 

2. Susruta looked upon the sclerotic coat of the eyeball (Eig. 1) 
as made of cartilage ; and as he counted cartilages as tender, or 
immature bones {taritna), he included the two ejeballs among- 
the bones of the skeleton (§ 30). Atreya-Charaka, on the other 
hand, excluded them, not because he knew them to be non- 
cartilaginous, but probably because the prepared skeleton would 


ordinarily be deprived of them. As a matter of fact, the sclerotic 
is not made of cartilag-e, but of * connective tissue with elastic 
fibres' ;^ but to the untrained eye the two substances are so nearly 
alike that the mistake of a primitive anatomist, such as Snsruta, 
may be easily understood. 

f 71. Hie Ears 

1. Karna, ear. The org-an denoted by this term is included 
among the bones in the systems of Susruta (§ 27) and Vag-bhata I 
(§ 37). The system of Atreya, in all three presentations, by 
Charaka (§ 4), Bheda (§ 12), and the Non-medical Version 
(§§ 16, 22), does not include it, probably for the same reason as 
caused the exclusion of the eyeballs (§ 70). 

Fig. 33. 

Pinna of the Right Ear. 

Showing — H. Helix. A. Antihelix. C. Concha. 

2. Susiuta, who includes the ears among the bones of the 
skeleton, was doubtless referring to the external ear, the auricle 
or pinna (Fig. 33), which is ' composed almost entirely of yellow 
fibro-cartilage '? In his class-list of the bones (§ 30) he explicitly 
enumerates the ear {karna) as an org-an made of tender bone 
[fanina), that is, of cartilage. The other two portions of the ear, 
the middle or tympanum which contains the three auditory 
ossicles, and the internal or labyrinth, both lying in the interior 
of the skull, appear, for that reason, to have escaped the notice of 
the early Indian anatomists. 

^ Dr. Potter's Compend of Human Anatoimj, p. 198. 

^ Dr. Gerrish's Textbook of Anatomy, 2nd ed., pp. 52, 69G. 



A. The System of Atreya-Charaka 

§ 72, The Traditional Recension of CharaJca 

1. The subjoined Traditional Recension of the Medical Version 
of the Sj^stem of AtreVa in the Compendium of Charaka 
[Caraka Samlntd)^ Sdnra StJidua, Vllth Adliyd/ja, is edited from 
the follo^Ying> materials : 

1. A = Alwar Palace Library MS., No. 1624. 

2. Pi -^ Deccan College MS., No. 368, fl. 30 h, 1. 4-fl. 31 a, 


3. D- = Deccan College MS., No. 925, fl. 107 1, 1. 8-fl. 108 a, 


4. IQi = India Office MS., No. 338, fl. 225 h, 1. 2-fl. 226 a, 

1. 1. 

5. 10- = India Office MS., No. 851, fl. 71 b, 11. 2-13. 

6. T^ = Tiibiugen University MS., No. 458, fl. 324 I, 1. 5- 

fl. 325 a, 1. 6. 

7. T- = Tiibingen University MS., No. 459, vol. II, fl. 29 b, 

1. 3-fl. 30 a, 1. 3. 

8. S^ := Sarada MS. of Dr. P. Cordier. 

9. S2 = Sarada MS. of Jammfi Library, No. 3266, fl. 118. 
10. EJ = Edition of Jivananda, 1877, p. 370, 11. 5-19. 

2. It runs as follows : 

Tatri^ayaiii sarlrasy^aiiga-vibhagah I dvau bahudve sakthini siro- 
grivam^antaradhir^iti sad-angam^angam II Trini sastani^ satany^^ 
asthnam saha danta-nakhena I tadcjyatha I [1] dvutriiiisad^dan- 

^ So D^ T^ S^ EJ and Chakrapanidatta's commentary. 10' has 
sasthii, ] )' T' sastyani, S' sastya, 10^ sasty-adhikaui ; A cm. 


tah, [2] dvatrirhsadi^dant-olukhalakani \ [3] vimsatir^nakhah, 
[4] sastih^ pnni-pad-angulj-asthlni, [5] viriisatili i^ani-pada- 
salakah, [6] catvari pani-pada-salak-adhisthanani, [7] dve pars- 
nyor "i^asthinl, [8] catvarah padayor^gulphah, [9] dvau manikau'* 
hastayoh, [10] catvaiy^aratnyor ^^asthini, [11] catvari jan- 
ghayoh, [12] dve januni ^ [13] dve janu-kapalike, [14] " dvav^ 
uiu-nalakau, [15] ^ dvau bahu-nalakan, [16 a] ^ dvavi^amsan, 
[16 ^>] dve ariisa-phalake 1°, [17] dvav-aksakau, [18] ekarii" jatru, 
[19] dve talusake^^ [20] dve sroni-phaiake ^^ [21] ekam bhag- 
asthi, [22] pancacatvarimsat-prstha-gatany^asthlni, [23] panea- 
dasa giivayam, [24] caturda^i^orasi, [25 a] dvayoli parsvayos ^U 
caturviriisatih parsukah ^^ [25 b] tavanti e^aiva sthalakani ^^ 
[25 c] tavanti c^^aiva sthalak-arbudani ^~, [26] ekam hanv-asthi, 
[27] dve hanu-mula-bandhane, [28] ek-asthi ^^ nasika-gandakuta- 
lalatam, [29] dvau saiikhau, [30] catvari sirab-kapalaai '■' I iti 
trini sastani^" satany^asthnam saha danta-nakhena ii 
For the translation, see § 4. 

^ So D'102, but T2 olukhalani, D' odukhalan;, lOTi olukhakani, 
A. S^"^ EJ olukbala-pbalani. 

^ 10^ prstba-pada ; T^ sasti-pada, witb pada cancelled in botb 
M8S., D^ sasti-pada ; tbis false reading explains Gaugadbar's emenda- 
tion ; S^ om. 

^ 10^ padayor. 

^ So D'I0>T'S'-2EJ, but A.U'T' bave manibandbakau ; 10= 

■' 10- bahvor. ^ 10^ janunori^dve. 

'' D^ T^ i^refix dvav-uru. 

' A.T SI pref. dvau babu ; 10' om. No. 15. 

* D' om. Xos. 16a-21. " T- skandha-pbalake. 

" D^ S^EJ evam. ^'^ A taluke, T» talu-pbalake. 

1^ T^ om. No. 20. " T D^ parsva-stbayos. 

'" So T- and Cbakrapanidatta's commentary ; D^ T^ paiyukab, and 
10^ paryuktab, botb obviously corrupt for parsukah : D" parsvaksb ; 
A.S^ EJ parsvavah, obviously wrong for par^avab or parsvakrdi ; 
lO*'' jjantbakab; S'^ om. 

^•^ A sthaimka, D^ stbanakani, T' stbaualakaui. 

^■^ A only arbudaui, 10" stbaaak-arbudani, D^ stbauak-atmakaui. 

'*' From beie missing in A. 

■^ EJ om. tbe final clause. 

'" So D« ; but D' 10^ T' sa-sasti, T« sasta. 


§ 73. Restored Recension of Charaka 

On the grounds explained in the fifth and sixth paragraphs 
the true form of the Medical Version of Charaka may be 
restored as follows : 

Tatr^a3'aih sarlrasy^anga-vibhagah I dvau bahu dve sakthini siro- 
grivam<fantaradhir^iti sad-angam<;angam II Trini sastani satany<^ 
asthnarii saha danta-nakhena I tad^yathfi I [1] dvatrimsad^dan- 
tah, [2] dvatrimsad^dant-olukhalakani, [3] viihsatir^nakhah, 
[4] sastih pani-pad-anguly-asthlni, [5] viiiisatih pani-pada- 
salakah, [6] catvari pani-pada-salak-adhisthanani, [7] dve pars- 
nyor^asthinT, [8] eatvarah padayorcfgulphah , [9] catvdro manikdh ^ 
hastayoh, [10] catvary^aratnyor^asthlni, [11] catvari janghay oh, 
[12] dve januni, [13] dve kapfdike'^, [14] dvav^uru-nalakau, [15] 
dvau bahu-nalakau, [16] ^ dve ariisa-phalake, [17] dvav^aksakau, 
[18] "^ dve sroni-phalake, [19] ^ ekam bhag-asthi, [20] ^ panca- 
catvaririisat<;prstha-gatany^asthlni, [21] ^ caturdas^orasi, [22 (f\ ^ 
dvayoh parsvayosi^caturvimsatih parsvakah, [22 «^] ^ tavanti 
c^aiva sthalakani, [22 c\ " tavanti c^aiva sthalak-arbudani, [23] 
pancadasa grivayam, [24]^ ekam jatru, [25]^ dve talusake, [26] 
ekaih hanv-asthi, [27] dve hanu-mula-bandhane, [28] ek-asthi 
nasika-gandakuta-lalatam, [29] dvau sankhau, [30] catvari 
sirah-kapalani I iti trIni sastani satanyi^asthnam saha danta- 
nakhena II 

For the translation, see § 7. 

^ 74. Spurious R&censio7i of Charaka 

1. Gangadhar's spurious recension of the Medical Version of 
Charaka occurs in the Berhampore edition (187 7-8), p. 185, 1. 26- 

' Trad. Rec, dvau manikau. 

'^ Ti'ad. Rec, janu-kapalike. 

■' Trad. Rec. inserts dvavi:aiasau. 

' Trad. Rec. places Nos. 18, 19, as Nos. 20, 21. 

•' Trad. Rec. places No. 20 as No. 22. 

•^ Trad. Rec. places No. 21 and 22 a b c, as Nos. 24 and 25 a b c. 

' Trad. Rec. places Nos. 24, 25, as Nos. 18, 1!). 


186, 1. 22. It is reprinted in the edition of Debendranfith and 
Upendranath Sen (1897), p. 414, §§ 4, 5, and in the second 
edition of Jivananda (1896), p, 351, §§ 4, 5. It runs as follows: 
Tatr^ayaiii sarirasyi^ang-a-vibhagah I dvaubahu,dve sakthini siro- 
g-rlvam^antaradhirijiti sad-angam^angam ii Trini sasty-adhikani 
satany^asthnaiii saha dant-olukhala-nakhaih I tadi^yatha I [1] dva- 
trimsad^dant-olukbalani, [2] dvatrimsad^dantah, [3] viihsatir^- 
nakhah, [4] vimsatih pani-pada-salakah, [5 «] catvary^adhistha- 
nanyiJasam, [5 ^] catvari pani-pada-prsthani,^ [6] sastir^anguly- 
asthini, [7 a] dve parsnyoh, [7 ^] dve kurc-adhah, [8] catvarah 
panyor^manikah, [9] catvarah padayorcfgulphah, [10] oatvary^ ^, 
aratnyor^asthini, [11] catvari janghayoh, [12] dvejanunoh, [13] ^M 
dve kurparayoh, [14] dve urvoh, [15] dve bahvoh, [16] s- | 
amsayoh, [17] dvaii aksakau, [18] dve taluni, [19] dve sroni- 
phalake, [20 «] ekam bhag-asthi, pumsam medhr-asthi, [20 S] 
ekam trika-samsritam, [20 e] ekam gud-asthi, [21] prstha-gatani 
pancatririisat, [22] paneadas^Jasthlni grlvayam, [23] dve jatruni, 
[24] ekaiii hanv-asthi, [25] dve hanu-mula-bandhane, [26 aj dve 
lalate, [26 b] dve aksnob, [26 c] dve gandayoh, [26^/] nasikayam 
tiini ghon-akhyani, [27 a] dvayoh ]jarsvayoscJcaturvimsatib, 
[27^] caturvimsatih panjar-asthini ca parsvakani, [27 c] tavanti 
c^aisarii sthalikanvi^arbud-akarani, tani dvisaptatih, [28] dvau 
saukhakau, [29] catvari sirah-kapalani, [30] vaksasi saptadasa i 
iti trIni sasty-adhikani satanyc^asthnam^iti ii 
For the translation, see § 8. 

2. The commentary of Gangadhar on the above recension runs 
as follows, ihidem, pp. 185-7 : 

Dvau bahu iti dve ange i dve sakthini iti dve ange i siro- 
grlvami^ity^ekam^angam i siras^^ca griva e^eti tayoh samahara 
itv^ekavad-bhavam i antaradhiri^iti ekam^ang-am i antar^madh- 
yam^adadhat^Iti utpattya madhya-deha iti i ity^evaiii sad-angam^ 
angam sariram i Susrnte 'pyi^uktam sarira-sariikhya-vyakaranarii 
Sarire i tac^ca sad-angam sakhas^^catasro, madhyaiii pancamarii, 
sastham sira iti atra griva-paryantarii sirah-saiiajnam^iti ii 

' This clause seems to be based on some false reading like that 
noticed in § 72, note 2. 


Trini^ity-adi i asthnam sasty-adhikani satani nrnamcjiti I nana 
salya-tantre trlni satuny^asthnam^ityi;ulctam, I kathanii^iha sasty- 
adhikani ity^ata aha , I sah^^ety-adi I salya-tantre Snsrute 'p3^^ 
uktam I tiini sa-sastany<^asthi-satani veda-vadino bhasante I 
salya-tantresu yesam^Jasthnarii visesena sastra-kvij^a cikitsite 
ni^asti, tani sasty-asthini n^Jopadisyaute I na tu ' na santi ' iti 
krtva ni^opadisyante I tani ca sastir^asthnam^esa i dant-olukhala- 
uakha-jatvv-asthlni sastis ^^taih saha trlni satani bhavanty^ 
asthnam<:iti I tani vivrnoti II 

Dvatrirbsadi^ity-adi I dantanarh dvatriiiisat i ekaikasy^aikai- 
kam^ulukhal-akrti-sthiti-sthanam^iti dvatrimsadi^eva dant-olu- 
khahlni l salya-tantre n^^oktani I dvatrimsadc^dantasi^t^^uktas^tad- 
g-rahanena tany^^api g-rhyante I virhsatiri^nakha iti salya-tantre 
n^oktam i viiiisatih pani-pada-salaka iti dvayoh panyoh padayos^ 
ca dvayos^talesu catursu sthanesv^ang"uli-vimsater^mulesu sthita 
vimsatih salakah I sastir^anguly-asthlni i pfini-pada-eatustaye 
viihsater^angullnam^ekaikasyam^angulyam trlni trlny^asthini, 
tany^ekaikasmin pani-pade pancadasa, catursu sastih I dve asthini 
parsnoh padayor^Jmiile salakabhyo 'dhahsthanii^ekaikam^iti dve I 
dve kurcadha iti panyoh salakabhyo 'dhastat^tac^chalaka- 
bandha ekaikam^^iti dvayoh panyori^mule dve asthini I parsnyori^ 
asthi-vat I tato 'dhastac^catvarah panyor^manika manibandha- 
sthane ekaikasmin panau dve asthini dvayosc^catvari I evam^^eva 
padayosi^catvaro gulpha iti I tato 'dhastac^^catvaiyi^aratnyor^as- 
thlni I hastayoh kosthe tv^^ekaikasmin dve dve asthini, tatas^; 
catvari aratnyor^^iti I evam catvari jaiighayor^^asthlni gulph- 
adhastaj^janu-paryante i dve janunor^iti prthu-g-udik-akare i 
evam^eva kurparayor^dve asthini I prakostha-bahvoh sandhaii 
ksudra-gudik-akare dve I dve urvori^itycJekaikasmin iiriiv^ekai- 
kam^iti dve I evam^eva s-amsayor<^bahvor^dve, ekaikasmin bahav^^ 
ekaikam^iti dve I ityc^evam catasrsu pani-pada-rupasu sakhasu 
khalv^ekaikasyarh sakhayam nakhaih saha dvatrimsad^asthini, 
catasrsu tany^astaviriisaty-uttararh satarii bhavanti I salya-tantresu 
Susi'ut-adisu nakh-anuktatvad^ekaikasyahi sakhayam saptavirh- 

* There appears to be an error here in the print of the commentary. 
The tliree items which are 7nentioned, dant-oltlkhcda {32),'H((kha (20), 
and jatru (2), work out a total, not of 60, hut only of 54. 


satih, tanycJast-ottara-satami^uktilni I iti (lantolukhala-dantii-sahi- 
tani tany^astavimsaty-uttara-sat-asthlni dvinavaty-adbika-sataiii 
bhavanti I dvfiv^aksaka vi^ity-adi i atra dvitva-prasangad^jdve tfilunl 
ity^uktam I talu-gata-dvaya-vaijam^aksak-adisu khalvc^aksaka- 
sroni-bhaga-medhra-trika-g-uda-prsthesu dvacatvariihsat I tad- 
yatha I dvav^aksakau kanth^adho 'rhsakau dvau I dve sroni-pha- 
lake iti nitambe dve l strlnam ekarii bhag-asthi, pumsarii medhr- 
asthi, trikaiii samsrtam ^ekam, gude c^aikam^iti panca sronyam^ 
aksakau dvav^iti sapta, prstha-gatani pancatrirhsad^iti dvaca- 
tvaririisat I atha grivam pratyi:urdhvam saptatrimsad^^iti i tad- 
yatha I dve taluni ity^uktam I pancadasa giivayam^iti I tesam^ 
ekadasa giivayarii, kanthanadyarii catvari I dve jatruni 1 Nemeli 
salj^a-tantre varnite I hanv-asthi c^aikam na varnitam^iti I dve 
hanu-mula-bandhane I dve lalate I dve aksnoh I dve srandavoh i 
nasikayam trirK^Iti ghana-ruj^a-vat I iti vaksyati I sirah-kapalani 
catvari, dvau sankhakavc^iti jatru-gata-dvaya-vaijam pancatririi- 
sad^grivarii praty^urdhvam I atha madhya-dehe I dvayoh pars- 
vayoMty-adi I dvayoh parsvayor^fekaikasmin parsvaka-mule vak- 
sasi lagnani dvadasa dvadasa iti caturvimsatih I caturvimsatih 
paiijar-asthini parsvakani I tany^ekaikasmin parsve dvadasa dva- 
das^eti caturvimsatih I tavanti c^aisam sthalikani prsthe tv^ 
arbud-akarani dvadasa dvSdas^eti caturvimsatis^^tani militva 
dvisaptatih 1 vaksasi saptadas^eti I puvvarii dve jatruni ity^uktam^ 
ity^ek-adhika-navatir^ madhya-dehe II dvau sankhakau catvari 
sirah-kapalan<;Iti grivam praty<^urdhvaiii sad vyakhyatani iti 
militva sasty-adhikani trlni satany^asthnam bhavanti i tatra 
salya-tantresu dantolukhalani dvatrimsadi^vimsatir^nakha jatruni 
dve hanv-asthi c^aikam^iti prthan^^n^ocyante ^ t danta-grahanena 
dantolukhalanam grahanat I nakhanarii bahyatvat I jatruni 
dvayor^vaksaso 'sthi-grahanena grahanat I hanv-asthnas^ca yau- 
vane prthaktvabhad^dvitvam^iti na virodhah II 

§ 75. The Glosses of Chccl-rapdnidatta 

The glosses of Chakrapanidatta are edited from the following 
materials : 

^ See the preceding note. Tliis clause seems to involve a similar 
error ; for the four items 32 + 20 + 2 + 1 give a total 55, but not 60. 



1. T = Tubingen MS., No. 463 (vol. JJ), fls. 284 i, 285 a. 

2. C = Copy of the osteolog-ical statement, as contained in the 
manuscript in Dr. P. Cordier's possession (see §11, footnote 1), 
kindly supplied by him to me. 

They run as follows : 

Tatra ayam^ity-adi I siro-grIvara^etadc;ekam^eva siro-vivaksa- 
yam I antaradhir^^madhye I sastani iti sasty-adhikani I dant-olu- 
khalakam yatr^^asrito dantali^ i yadyapi nakha VividhasitapTtlyena 
mala-bhoga-posyatvena mala eva ^ praksiptas^tathap^lh^asthi- 
ta^-rupa-yogasy^api vidyamanatvad<;asthi-ganauayam pathitah* i 
pratyanguli-parva-trayam tena vimsaty-anguli-gatami^asthnaiii 
vimsati-trayam ^ bhavati I vrddh-angusthe ca hasta-pada-pravi- 
stam trtlyam^ parva jneyam 1 vrddh-aiigustha-salaka api svalpa- 
pramana jneya I angulinarh salaka yatra samlagnah tac^chalak- 
adhisthanam '^ i janu janiikam^ jaiigh-orvoh sandhih I aksakau 
kosth-avak amsa-jatru-sandheh kllakavi ^ I talusake talv-asthini i 

^ T dant-olukhalako, C dantes-^ulukhalam yatr^asrita dautah \ 

^ T vividhasitapitiyena mana-bhoga-posyatvena mana eva ; C 
vivldhasitapltiye mala-bhaga-posyatveua male eva I 

^ T astita ll * So T ; C has patitah I 

^ So C ; T reads annaih vimsatiyam i 

^ So T, except that it lias va for ca. C reads yad^dhasta^pada- 
pravistam tat trtiyam i 

'' C tatra salak-angusth-adhistlianam I 

*• T om. janu, C om. janukam I 

^ Conjectural; T has aksakas-kostamvamkasayattu saiidhe kilakau; 
C reads aksav<;iv^aksakau jatru-sandheh kilakau I The reading of C 
conveys the impression of being a conjectural emendation of a corrupt 
text, perhaps made by the person who copied C for Dr. P. Cordier. 
It is clearly not the original reading; for (1) it is so simple and easy 
that it seems difficult to conceive liow a copyist, however ignorant he 
might be, should tranf^mogrify it into the reading of the Tiibiugen 
MS., from which it widely differs ; and (2) it involves for the terms 
jatru and sandhi the meanings ' collai'-boue ' and ' connecting-link ', 
which are quite unknown to the older Indian medical science (see 
§ 62). Literally that reading may be translated : ' The two axle-like 
uksaha are the pegs of the clavicular connexion ' ; i. e. the two 
clavicles {jatru) which connect [sandhi) the neck with the shoulder 
are pegs (kilaka) resembling the axle of a car which connects its 
wheels with one another, and hence are called ' little axles ' {ahsaka, 
diminutive of dksa). In the older Indian Medicine, jatru means the 
windpipe or neck, and sandhi denotes an articulation. See my article 
in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic fSociety for 1906, pj). 922 if. 


bhag-asthi abhimukliarh kati-sandhfina-karalvam ^ tiryag--asthi I 
sthalakani iti parsukaniirii mula-sthanani nimnani ^ I sthalak- 
arbudani tu parsuk-asthisu nimnesu madhj^e sthitany "^arbud- 
akarany^asthmi I nasika-g'andakuta-lahltair^^militva,^ ekamc?eva 
asthi g-ananlj^am I ye^ tu prthag'-ang'ani ^^pathanti tesaiii nasa- 
gandakuta-laUltanam trayanarii trlny;;eva asthini iti na '^ saiikhya- 
puranam II 

For the translation, see § 11. 

§ 76. The Traditional Recension of Bheda 

The traditional recension of the Medieal Version of Atreya's 
system in the Compendium of Bheda {Sdrlra Sthdna, VII 
adhydya) is edited from the following sources: 

1. The copy of the Tanjore Manuscript which, as stated in 
§ 12, is my possession. It is a beautifully written copy in 
Telug-u characters, carefully collated with the orig-inal manu- 
script by Mr. C. Krishnayya, the Tanjore Palace Librarian. 

2. A copy, in Roman characters, of the osteological statement, 
kindly made for me by Professor Jolly, from the copy of 
the Tanjore manuscript in the possession of Dr. P. Cordier 
(marked J). 

3. An edited copy, in Roman, of the same statement, kindly 
supplied to me by Dr. P. Cordier from his copy of the Tanjore 
manuscript (marked C). 

Seeing- that the Bheda manuscript is unique and very difficult 
of access, the osteological statement is first reproduced exactly as 
it stands in my excellent copy. This reproduction is followed by 
an amended copy, edited from the sources mentioned above. 
A translation of it is given in § 12. 

^ So C ; but T reads atisukriam kaya-sandhaua-karakaih I 

- So T ; but C reads mula-sthana-laguani I 

^ So T ; but C reads only parsuka-mulany I 

" So T ; but C has lalatanam-eka-mulatvad, which reading yields 
exactly the same sense. 

•' T om. ye I " So C ; but T prthag-gananat I 

' So T ; but C has ekatvena tu for iti iia, which yields the same 


1. Reproduction. 

Trini sastini^ savany^iJastharh^ tad-yatha I dvatiirhsadcjdaihtah I 
dvatrimsadi^damt-olukhalakani'* I vimsati pani-pada-salanany^ 
amg-uly-asthlni vimsatih I pani-pada-salaka catvaii I pani-pada- 
salak-adhisthanani dve^ I parsor ^^asthlni catvarah. I padayor* 
g-ulbah '^ dvau manikau panike dve hastayoh catvaryi^amsayor ^ 
<^asthlni dve jamg-hayori^dve januni^ dve janu-kapanike-"' dvav;? 
uru dvavi^uru-nasakau ^^ dvavi^asau ^^ dve ansa-phalake ^^ dvav^^ 
amksanau ^* ekam jatru (^h) ^^ dve talu ^^ dve eubuke dve sroni- 
pbalake I ekarh bhag-'asthi I pamcacatvarimsati^prstha-g-at-odhrs- 
thiti^'^ pameadasa grlvayaih I eaturdas^orasi I caturviriisati ^^ par- 
saka^^ I parsvayor ^^^yavarati c^aiva sthalakani tavamti c^aiva 
stbalak-arbudakani ^^ I ekarh hanv-astbi dve hanu-bamdhane ^^ I 
ekarii nas-asthi tatha hanukuta-lati ^^ I catvari sirsa-kapalani ii 

2. Edition, 

Tiini sastini satany^astbnam I tad-yatha I [1] dvatriihsad^ 
dantah, [2] dvatriihsad^dant-olukhalakani, [3] vimsativcfnakhah^^, 
[4] sasty^^^ahguly-asthmi, [5] viriisatih pani-pada-salakah, [6] 

^ J.C sastini. 

^ So also J, but C satany. ' J.C astbuam. 

* So also C, but J olukbalani. 

' So the three preceding clauses also in J, but C edits them as 

follows: ' vimsatih pani-pada-salakah I anguly-asthluii 

catvari pani-pada-salftk-adhisthauani I ' 

® C parsnyor. "^ C gulphah. 

* C aratnyor. ' C januni. ^° C kapalike. 
^^ So also J, but C nalakau. 

'^ J dvau nasau; but C dvavifamsau. 
" J anna-phalake ; but C amsa-phalake. 
" J vamksanau ; but C aksakaviJ. 

" J jatru ; C jatru. " J talu. 

" So also J ; but C gatany:?asthlni. " J.C caturvimsati. 

" So also J ; but C parsvakani. ^'^ J parsvayo. 

" So also C ; but J arbudaiii. 
" So also J ; but C hanu-mula-bandliane. 
" J lat ; but C lalataih. 

" These two words are omitted in the original by a confused 
blunder of the scribe. 



catvari pani-pada-saluk-adhisthanani, [7] dve parsnyor^asthini, 
[8] catvarah padayov^gulphfih, [9] d\ au manikau ^ hastayoh, 
[10] catvary^aratnyor^asthlni, [11] dve janghayoh, [12] dve 
janunT, [13] dve janu-kaptilike, [14] ^ dvavi^uru-nalakau, [15] 
deest, [16 a] dvav^arhsau, [16 I/] dve amsa-phalake, [17] dvav^ 
aksakau^, [18] ekarh jafcru, [19] dve talanl\ [20] dve svroni- 
phalake, [21] ekam bhag-asthi, [22] pancacatvarimsat^prstha- 
gatany^asthlni ^, [23] pancadasa grivayam, [24] caturdasi^orasi, 
[25 a] caturvimsatih parsvakah, [25 1] parsvayor^yavanti 
c^aiva stbalakani, [25 c'j tavanti c^aiva sthalak-arbudani, [26] 
ekam hanv-asthi, [27] dve hanu-mula-bandhane, [28 a] ekarii 
nas-asthi, [28 5] tatha hanukuta-lalate, [29] deest, [30] catvari 
slisa-kapalani II 

§ 77. The Non-medical Version of Yajnavalhya 

The traditional recension of the Non-medical Version of 
Atreya's System in the Law-book of Yajnavalkya is edited from 
the following sources : 

1. ASBi = Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. I B 51. 

2. ASB2 = „ „ „ No. II A 10. 

3. ASB3 = „ „ „ No. II A 11. 

4. Bd. = Bodleian MS., No. 65. 
Bl. = Berlin MS., No. 340 (Prof. Stenzler's A, p. 132). 

IQi = India Office, No. 1079. 

„ No. 1176. 

„ No. 1278. 

„ No. 1786. 

„ No. 2035. 

„ No. 2060. 

„ No. 2074. 

„ No. 2167. 

^ Pdnike dve and dve cuhuhe, in the original, are marginal glosses 
which have got into the text. 

^ Dvdv^uru, in the original, is an obvious false duplication. 

' Arhksanau and odhrsthiti, in the original, are obvious clerical 


151. = 


101 = 


102 = 


103 = 


10* = 


105 = 


I0« = 


10^ = 


108 = 


14. 10^ = India Office, No. 2823. 

15. lO^o = „ „ No. 3022. 

16. 10^1 = „ „ No. 23(50). 

17. St. = Prof. Stenzler's edition, pp. 89, 90. 

It runs as follows : 

Sad;^ang'ani tath^asthnam ca saha sastya sata-trayam II 84 II 
Sthalaih saha catuhsastir^danta vai, virhsatir^nakhah I 

pani-pada-salakasiJca, tasam sthana-eatustayam II 85 II 
Sastyc?angullnam, dve parsnyor^g-ulphesu ca catustayam I 

catvaryc^aratnik-asthlni, jang-hayos^tavad^^eva tu II 86 II 
Dve dve janu-kapol-oruphalak-amsasamudbhave I 

aksa-talusake sroniphalake ca vinirdiset II 87 II 
BhagasthycJekam, tatha prsthe catvarirhsac^ca panca I 

griva pancadas-asthih syajVjatrv^ekam ^ ca, tatha haniih II 88 II 
Tan-mule dve lalat-aksi-gande, nasa ghan-asthika ^ I 

parsvakah sthalakaih sardham^arbudais^^ca dvisaptatih II 89 II 
Dvau sankhakau, kapalani catvari sirasas^tatha I 

urah saptadas-asthi^Iti purusasy^asthi-samgrahah II 90 II 

For the translation, see § 16. 

^78. Gangddhars Recension of the Non-medical 


Gangadhar's recension of the Non-medical Version, reprioted 
from his Berhampore edition, pp. 187-8, runs as follows, his 
emendations being shown in italics. (Translation in § 18.) : 

Sthalaih saha catuhsastir^dasana, virhsatir^Jnakhah I 

pani-pada-salakasi^ea, tasam sthana-eatustayam II 85 or 28 II 

Sasty^angullnam, dve parsnyoh, kurc-ddho mani-gulj^kayoh. I 
catvary^aratnyos^c^asthlni, janghayam tad-vad^^eva ca II 86 
or 29 II 

1 So Bd., Bl., I0*««-^-«-^«" ; but ASB^ 10^', St. jatrv^ekaikam ; 10" 
originally had jatrv^ekaikam, but corrected by the same hand to 
jatrvi^ekam ca ; ASB^ jatruny^ekam ; ASB^ jatrav^ekam ; 10 
jalikam ca; 10^ cm. 


" ASB^ nauamghrinastbika. 

O 2 


Dve dve janu-^Mrjoar-oruphalak-amsasamndbhave I 

aksa-talusake sroniphalake Ci^aivami^adiset II 87 or 30 II 
Bhagasthyi^ekaih, trike^ pdyau, jmthe triimac<-ca pahca ca I 

grlva paScadas-asthiih syaj^j airv^ekaikam, tatha hanoh II 88 or 
Tan-mule dve, lalat-aksi-g-ande, nasa g-han-asthika I 

parsvaka-sthalikaih sardhami^arbudani dvisaptatih II 89 or 32 ii 
Dvau sankhakau, kapalani catvary^^eva sirasy^atha I 

urah pancadas-asthi syat, purusasyi^asthi-samg-rahah II 90 or 
33 II 
Ityc^etad^eva Agneya-purane Yajnavalkya-Samhitayam ca 
smrtaviJuktam II 

This recension is not quite easy to construe so as to work 
out the required total of 360. The main difficulty lies in the 
second verse. There may be an error in the text ; but taking- 
it as it stands, it would seem that the numeral which is meant 
to be construed with mani-gulp)1iayoh is the subsequent catvdri, 
four, which likewise g-overns aratni and jangha. That is to say, 
' of wrist-bones and ankle-bones there are four, also in the fore- 
arms, and likewise in the leg's.' It would also seem that the 
dual pdnnyoh is meant to indicate, not the two heels of the 
feet, but the heels (supposed to be) in the hands as well as 
in the feet (see §§ 32, 50). The meaning of dve pdnnyoh^ 
therefore, is ' there are two bones in either of the two sets of 
heels', that is, there are two heels in the hands and two in the 
feet, or altogether four heels. This, no doubt, gives the impres- 
sion of a rather forced interpretation : the more obvious meaning 
would seem to be, ' there are two bones in the heels (of the 
feet), and two in the wrists as well as in the ankles ' ; that is to 
say, there are only two heels, two wrist-bones, and two ankle- 
bones. But with this, apparently more natural, interpretation, 
it is impossible to work out satisfactorily the total of Ganga- 
dhar's recension. That (as shown in § 19) is only possible with 
the alternative interpretation. And there is this to be said for 
the latter interpretation, that, as shown by his reconstruction of 
Charaka's Medical Version (§§ 8, 23), Gangadhar certainly held 
the existence of four wrist-bones, as well as four ankle-bones. 


As to his doctrine of four heels, he was, no doubt, g-uided by the 
Traditional Recension of Susruta's system (§ 27), and by the 
system of Vag-bhata I (§ 37). 

§ 79. The Commentary of Apardrka 

The commentary of Apararka on the Non-medical Version, 
edited from the India Office MS., No. 3022, runs as follows : 

[Verse 84.] Sad^^angani ity-adina manusya-sarlram^eva 

nirupayati I I sirah pan! padau madhya-kaya iti sad^ 

aiigani I asthini ca sasty-adhika-sata-traya-samkhyakani manu- 
sya-sarlraih dharayantill 

[Verse 85.] uktam^asthi-samkhyam^upapadayitum<;aha I danta 
dvatrirhsat I dvatrimsad^eva tesam sthala-samkhyakanyi^ayatan- 
asthlni I evara sa-sthala ^ dantascjcatuhsastir<^bhavanti I .... i 
nakhas^ca vimsatih I panyoh padayos^c^anguli-mulani salakah 
tasi^ca vimsatih I tasaih ca salakanam sthanam^asthi-catustayam I 
evam^ast-ottar-asthi-satam II 

[Verse 86.] ekaikasyam^angulyam^asthi-trayarh tatas^ca 
sarvasam<:angullnam sastir^^asthini I padayoh pascimau bhagau 
parsnl, tayor^asthi-dvayam i jangha-parsnyoh sandhi-pradesatvarh 
tad-bahir-avasthitau ekatra pade gulphau, tatas^ca padayor^ 
gulphesu catvary^^asthlni I aratnir^eva aratnikah, yady-apy<;aratni- 
sabdo bahv-agraha eva vartate tath-apy^^atra asthi-catustaya- 
samkhya-sampatty-artham prayujyamanah, samagram^eva has- 
tami^aha, evami^aratnik-asthlni bhavanti I jangha-sabdo 'pi tath« 
aiva samagra-pada-vacano ^ 'tra, tatas^ca jang-hayor^api catvary^ 
eva asthini I esaih catussaptatih I pui-vena ast-ottara-satena saha 
dvyasitarh satam II kirii ca II 

[Verse 87.] januni jangh-oru-sandhi I kapolau gallau I uru 
sakthini, te ca phalak-akare I amsau bahu-mule, tat-samudbhave I 
tatha aksa-talusake netra-prant-asthini I sroni-phalake jan- 
gha-prstha-madhya-desau I praty-abhidhanarh dve dve asthini I 
evariividhaya samkhyaya saha caturnavaty-adhikam satam li 
kiih ca II 

^ MS. sa-sthalam. ^ MS. pade vacano. 


[Verse 88.] bhag-asthi upasth-asthvi^ekam I prsthe pancacatva- 
riihsat I grlvayam pancadasa i jatruni uro-'ihsa\'OScfsandhavi^ekam i 
hanusi^cibukam, tadcfapy^ek-asthi I s<;aisa trisastih I purvaya sam- 
^^l^jaya saha sata-dvayam saptapaScasad-adhikam II kim ca ii 

[Verse 89.] tan-mule dve asthini i tatha lalat-asthy^ekam i 
tath^aksayorc^dve I g-andayor^dve I kapol-aksi-madhya-pradtsau 
g-andan I nasa g-hana-sariijfiaken^asthiii^apycJukta ^ veditavya I tena 
tad^asthy^ekam II parsuka vaiikrayah, tab stbalakair^arbuda- 
sariijnakaisi^ca astbibbis^sardbam dvasaptatib I purvair^astabbisi^ 
gardbam^asltib I purva-samkbyaya saba sapta-trimsad-adbika- 
sata-trayam II kim ca II 

[Verse 90.] bbru-karna-madbya-pradesau sankbau I astbini 

siras-sambandbini kapal-akarani catvari I i m'O vaksas^ 

tasya saptadasa I tatah trayovimsatib I purva-samkby-opeta sasty- 
adbikam sata-trayam i esa purusasya manusya-sarlrasya astbi- 
samkbya-samg-rabah II 


[Verse 84.] With tbe words ' six parts, &c.' tbe autbor de- 
scribes tbe human body the bead, tbe two bands, tbe 

two feet, and tbe trunk : these are tbe six parts ; and tbe bones, 
which number three hundred and sixty, support tbe body of 

[Verse 85.] Detailing the said number of bones the author 
says : tbe teeth {danta) are thirty-two ; thirty-two are also their 
socket-bones, termed sthdia ; hence the teeth, together with their 

sockets, amount to sixty-four The nails {nakha) number 

twenty. The long bones {mhlkci) form tbe bases of tbe fingers 
of the hands and feet ; they also number twenty. The bases 
{sthdua) of the long bones number four -. Thus we have alto- 
gether one hundred and eight bones. 

[Verse 86.] In each digit {anguli) there are three bones ; 
hence in all the digits together there are sixty bones. The heels 
[pdmii] are tbe posterior parts of tbe two feet. They contain 
two bones. At tbe place where tbe leg and heel join there are, 
externally, in each foot, two ankle-bones {gulpha) ; and hence the 

^ MS. samjflakenasthapukra. 

^ See the Exegetical Note in § 83. 


ankle-bones of the two feet number four. Aratnikd is a synonym 
of aratni, forearm : though the word ' forearm ' [nratni) does not 
really include the arm (hdhu), yet here, for the sake of obtaining 
the number four of the bones, it is employed in that sense [i.e. 
as including the arms]. The author is speaking really of the 
whole upper limb ; hence the bones of the ' forearms ' {aratni) 
number four. Similarly the word ' leg ' [jangha) here signifies 
the whole lower limb ; and hence the bones of the two legs also 
number four. These items together number seventy ; and these, 
together with the aforementioned one hundred and eight, 
amount to one hundred and eia-htv-two bones. Further : 

[Verse 87.] The two knees {jdnti) are the two joints between 
the leg and the thigh. By the two kapola the two cheeks are 
meant ; and by the two uru the two thighs, which are shaped 
like boards. The two shoulders (or shoulder-summits, aihsa) are 
the bases from which the arms spring. Next, by the two aha- 
tdlu-^aka, the two bones are meant which lie on the edge of the 
eye. The two hip-blades {sroni-phalakd) are the two i^laces 
between the two lower limbs and the back. Each item consists 
of two bones. Together with the number (twelve) thus obtained, 
the total of the bones amounts to one hundred and ninety-four. 
Further : 

[Verse 88.] The pubic {bhacjdsihi) or private bone is one. 
In the back {ppi/ta) there are forty-five bones ; in the neck 
(^ffnvd) fifteen ; in the windpipe [jairu), at the joint of the breast 
and shoulder, one. Hmm signifies the chin ; that also consists of 
one bone. This makes sixty-three bones ; and with the aforesaid 
number (194) the total amounts to two hundred and fifty-seven. 
Further : 

[Verse 89.] At the back of that bone [i.e. of the chin] there 
are two bones. Next, the brow contains one bone. Next, in 
the two eyes, there are two bones ; so also there are two in the 
two ganda, by which term the two places intermediate between 
the cheeks and the eyes are meant. The nose must be under- 
stood to be expressed also by the term gkayia-honQ. Farsvka 
denotes the ribs ; these, together with their sockets {stiidlaka) 
and the so-called tubercles [arbtida), number seventy-two. With 
the previous eight bones they amount to eighty ; and these, 


tog-ether with the previously stated number (257), amount to 
three hundred and thirty-seven. Further: 

[Verse 90.] The two temples [miikha) are the two places 
intermediate between the eyebrows and the ears. The pan- 
shaped bones [kajmla) which constitute the cranium number 
four .... Uras signifies the breast; it contains seventeen 
bones. Hence we have altogether twenty-three ; and these, 
together with the previously numbered (337), amount to a total 
of three hundred and sixty. This makes up the aggregate 
number of bones of the human skeleton. 

{ 80. The Commentary of Vijndnesvara 

In the Mitakshara commentary of Vijnanesvara, the passages 
on the iSTon-medical Version, edited from the India Office MSS., 
No3. 1079, 2035, 2060, run as follows : 

[Verse 84.] Tath^angani sadi^eva kara-yugmam carana-yuga- 
lamiJuttamangarh gatram^iti I asthnam tu sasti-sahitam sata- 
trayam^uparitana-sat-sloka-vaksyamanami^avagantavyam 1 1 kim 
ca II 

[Verse 85.] sthalani danta-mula-pradesa-sthanyi^asthmi dva- 
tririisat I tais^saha dvatrimsad^^^dantas^catuhsastiri^bhavanti i na- 
khah kara-ruha vimsatih I hasta-pada-sthitani salak-akarany^^asthl- 
ni manibandhasy^opari-vartlnyi^anguli-mula-sthani vimsatiri^eva I 
tesam nakhanam salak-asthnam ca sthana-catustayarii dvau ca- 
ranau karau ca I itycfevam^^asthnam catur-uttara-satam II kim 
ca II 

[Verse 86,] vimsatir^jangulayasi^tasami^ekaikasya trlni trini, 
itycJevam^anguli-sambaddhanyi^asthini sastir^^bhavanti I padayoh 
pf.scimau bhagau parsnl, ta3'ori^asthinI dve I ekaikasmin pade 
gulphau dvavi^ityi^evam catursu gulphesu catvaiy^asthlni I bahvori^ 
aratni-pramanani catvaiy^^asthlnil janghayos^ca tavadi^^eva catvaril 
ity<;evarh catuhsaptatih II kim ca II 

[Verse 87.] jangh-oini-sandhir^januh I kapolo gallah I iiruh 
saktlii, tat phalakam I amso bhuja-sirah I aksah karna-netrayor^ 
madhye sankhad^adhobhagah I talusakam kakudam I sronih ka- 


kudmini, tat phalakam I tesantic^ekaikaso 'sthini dve dve vinir- 
diset I ity<;evaih caturdasi^asthlni bhavanti II kim ca II 

[Verse 88,] guhy-asthjifekam I prsthe pascima-bhag-e panca- 
catvarimsad^asthini bhavanti I grlva kandhara, sa paneadas- 
astbih syat I vakso-'msayob sandbir^jatru, prati-jatrv<;ekaikam i 
hanus^cibukaih, tatr<:apy^ekam^asthi I ityi^evam eatuhsastih II 
kim ca II 

[Verse 89.] tasya banor^mide 'sthini dve I lalatarh bhalam I 
aksi caksLih I g-andah kapol-aksayor^madhya-pradesah i tesam 
samaharo lalat-aksi-gandam, tatra pratyekam^asthi-yugalam I 
nasa ghana-samjnak-asthimatl I parsvakah kaks-adhahpradesa- 
saihbaddhanyi^asthini, tad-adhara-bhutani sthalakani, taih sthala- 
kaih arbudais^Ci^asthi-visesaih saha parsvaka dvisaptatih I purv- 
oktais^ea navabhih sardbam^ekasltiiisbhavanti II kim ca II 

[Verse 90.] bhru-karnayor^madhya-pradesavi^asthi-visesau 
sankhakau I sirasah sambandhlni catvari kapalani I uro vaksah, 
tatiJsaptadas-asthikam I ity^evam trayovimsatih I purv-oktais^ca 
saha sasty-adhikam sata-trayanK^ityi^evam purusasy^asthi-sam- 

grahah kathitah II 


[Verse 84.] The six parts of the body are the following : the 
pair of hands, the pair of feet, the head, and the trunk. As to 
the three hundred and sixty bones, they must be understood to 
be detailed in the ensuing six verses ; as thus : 

[Verse 85.] The sockets (sfJ/dla), i. e. the bones which hold the 
roots of the teeth, number thirty-two. Together with them the 
thirty-two teeth {danta) amount to sixty-four. The nails {naklta) 
which grow on the hands [and feet] number twenty. The 
pencil-like {Saldkd) bones, occurring in the hands and feet, 
situated above the wrist-bones [and ankle-bones] and at the 
roots of the digits, number also twenty. These nails and long 
bones have four places {stJidna), namely, the two feet and the 
two hands.^ So far, the bones amount to one hundred and 
four. Further, 

[Verse 86.] The digits [anguli) number twenty ; in each of 
them there are three bones ; thus the bones which make up the 
digits amount to sixty. The heels {pdrmi) are the posterior parts 
* See the Exegetioal Note in § 83. 


of the two feet ; their bones number two. In each foot there are 
two ankle-bones {gnlpha) ; thus in the four ankles there are four 
bones. The bones of the two arms {bdliu), being- implied in the 
term forearm [aratni), number four. Those of the two legs 
[jafiflha) likewise number four. Further, 

[Verse 87.] The knee [jdnu) is the joint of the leg and thigh. 
The term kapola signifies the cheek. The thigh [uru) is the 
broad bone {phalaJca) of the lower limb. The shoulder (amsa) 
signifies the head of the arm (i. e. the summit of the shoulder). 
By the term aha is meant that part which lies below the temple 
between the ear and the eye. The term tdlmaka denotes the 
hard palate. The hip {sroni) is the broad bone [phalaka) in the 
loins. In each of these organs one should recognize two bones. 
Thus we have altogether fourteen bones. Further, 

[Verse 88.] The private part {guhya) consists of one bone. In 
the back [pr-^tha), or posterior part of the body, there are 
forty-five bones. The term ynt'a signifies the neck; it consists of 
fifteen bones. The collar-bone [jatru) is the junction of breast 
and shoulder [i.e. head of the arm, or summit of the shoulder: 
see verse 87] ; either collar-bone contains one bone. The term 
hanu signifies the chin ; it also contains one bone. Thus we 
have altogether sixty-four bones. Further, 

[Verse 89.] At the back of the chin {hanu) there are two 
bones. The term laldta signifies the brow; akn, the eye; gan(]a, 
the spot between the cheek and the eye. The aggregate of 
these (three organs) is indicated by the compound of the three 
terms laldta, aksi, ganda ; each of the three component parts 
consists of a pair of bones. The nose {ndsd) is the bone termed 
ghana. The ribs {pdrhaka) are the bones which make up the 
part of the body situated below the armpits ; the sockets 
{sthdlaka) are their supporters; with these supporters, and with 
the peculiar bones termed tubercles [arbuda), the ribs number 
seventy-two. Thus, together with the previously mentioned 
nine, we have eighty-one bones. Further, 

[Verse 90.] In the space intermediate between the eyebrow 
and the ear there are the two peculiar bones termed temples 
{mnkfia). The pan-shaped bones which constitute the cranium 
{firah-kapdla) number four. The term uras denotes the breast; 


it contains seventeen bones. Thus we have altogether twenty- 
three bones; and these, together with all the afore-mentioned, 
make up the total of three hundred and sixty bones which 
constitute the skeleton of man. 

^81. The Commentary of Sidapdni 

The commentary of Sulapani, called Dipakalika, on the Non- 
medical Version, edited from the India OiRce MS., No. 1278, 
runs as follows : 

[Verse 84.] Asthnam^^api sasty-adhikam sata-trayam I tad- 

[Verse 85.] sthalair^ity-adi I sthalani danta-bandha ^-sthanani, 
taih saha dantasj^catuhsastih I nakhasi^ca vimsatih I pani-pada- 
salakas^ca vimsatih I tesam hasta-dvayena pada-dvayena ca 
sthana-catustayam I evam ca catur-uttara-satam^asthlni II 

[Verse 86.] sasty^ity-adi I angulmam pratyekam trini trini 
ityi?evam sastir^asthlni I aratnik-asthini bahvoh I evam ca 
catuhsaptatir^asthlni II 

[Verse 87.] dve dve ity-adi I aksa-samjne dve I janu-samjne 
dve I evam ca caturdas^astblni 11 

[Verse 88.] bhag-asthi ity-adi I hanus ^<;cibukam I evam 
catuhsastir^asthini II 

[Verse 89.] tan-mQla ity-adi I tan-mule hanu-miile, dve la- 
late I aksi-gande dve I nasayam ca ghan-asthikayanii^ekam I 
parsvakah panjar-asthlni^ tad-adharaih sthalairi^arbudaisiJca saha 
dvisaptatir<;bhavati I evam^ekasltir^asthlni II 

[Verse 90.] dvavcfity-adi I karna-bhruvor^madhye dvau sankha- 
kau I sirasah kapalani catvari I urah saptadasa I evam trayovirh- 
satih I evam purusasya asthi-samgrahah kathitah II 


[Verse 84.] The number of bones is three hundred and sixty. 
The author states their details. 

[Verse 85.] ' With the sockets,' &c. The sockets {dhdia) 
are the fixing places of the teeth. Together with these, the 
teeth number sixty-four. The nails [nakka) number twenty. 

» MS. buddha. 2 MS. hanu. 


The long- bones {Saldkd) of the hands and feet also number twenty. 
The bases [stJidna) of them [i.e. of the nails], by reason of there 
being a pair of hands and a pair of feet, are four.^ Thus (in 
this verse) the bones amount to one hundi'ed and four. 

[Verse 86.] ' Sixty,' &e. Each dig-it [anguli) has three bones ; 
thus there are altogether sixty bones. The bones of the fore- 
arms {araimka) signify those of the two arms {hdhu). Thus (in 
this verse) there are altogether sixty-four bones. 

[Verse 87.] ' Two each,' &c. The so-called collar-bones [aha] 
number two. The so-called knees {jdnu) number two. Thus 
(in this verse) there are altogether fourteen bones. 

[Verse 88.] ' The pubic bone,' &c. By hanu is meant the 
chin. Thus (in this verse) there are altogether sixty-four 

[Verse 89.] ' At the base of it,' &c. The two bases of it 
{tan-mule) refer to the bases of the chin. There are two brows 
{laldta) ; also two each of eyes {ahi) and cheeks [ganda). In 
the gliana-hone, that is, in the nose (7idsd), there is one bone. 
The ribs (pdrhaka) are the bones of the (thoracic) cage ; 
together with their sockets {sfhdla) and tubercles {arbuda) they 
number seventy-two. Thus (in this verse) there are altogether 
eighty-one bones. 

[Verse 90.] ' Two,' &c. Between the ears and the eyebrows 
there are the two temples {mnkha). The pan-shaped bones 
{kapdla) of the cranium number four. The breast [uras) has 
seventeen bones. Thus (in this verse) the total is twenty-three. 
Herewith the bones of the skeleton of man have been explained. 

^ 82. The Commentary of Mitramisra 

The commentary of Mitramisra on the Non-medical Version, 
edited from the India Office MS., No. 1176, runs as follows: 

[Verse 84.] Karadvaya-caranadvaya-siro-gatrani sad^angani I 
asthnam sasti-sahitam sata-trayam sat-sloka ^-vaksyamanapra- 
karena dharayanti I ... II 

* See the Exegetical Note in § 83. « MS. slokya. 


[Verse 85.] dvatrimsata sthalairj^danta-mula-pradesa-sthair^s 
asthibhih sahita dvatrirhsad^^dantasi^eatuhsastiri^bhavati I pani- 
pada-nakha vimsatih I pani-pada-stah salakas<;tad-akaranyi;asthlni 
ea virhsatir^manibandhasya gulphasya ca puro-vartlni I tesarh 
nakhanam salakanam ca mula-pradesa-rupaih sthana-catustayam 
kara-dvayam carana-dvayam ^ ca I ity^evami^atra catur-adhikarii 
satam^asthnam II uktam sthana-catustayam sv-asthi-bhinnasya 
prasangato 'bhidhanat ; yadi^va nakhanam sthanam salaka ity^ 
abhed-anvayah, catustayatvam ^ Cifaikaika-hast-adi-salakanaih 
samudayam^abhipretya uktam^ity^avirodhah II 

[Verse 86.] ang*ullnam sastir^^asthini, ekaikasya anguleri^asthi- 
traya-sambandhat I parsnyoh pada-pascima-bhagayor^asthlni 
dve I ekaikasmin pade gulphau vama-daksina-sthau dvau dvav^J 
iti catursu gulphesu asthi-catustayam I bahavo 'ratni-pramanani 
catvary^asthlni I iti catuhsaptatih II 

[Verse 87.] januni jangh-oru-sandhl ^ I kapolau g-allau I uru- 
phalake sakthini I aihsau bahu-mula etat-samudbhave I praty- 
ekam dve dve asthini I akse karna-netr-antarala-dese I talusake 
talu-mule I sroni-phalake kati I pratyekarii dve dve asthini I iti 
caturdas^asthlni II 

[Verse 88.] bhaga-padena sisnasya apyi^upalaksanam, tad-asthi 
ekam I prsthe pancacatvarimsad^asthlni I g-rlva kandhara pan- 
cadas-asthi-yukta bhavati I ekam^^asthim^asritya jatru, vakso- 
'ihsa-sandhi ^-dvayam I hanusi^cibukam sjat I ity^evam catuh- 
sastir^^asthlni II 

[Verse 89.] tasya hanori?mule dve asthini lalate aksini ^, 
gande ca kapol-aksi ^-madhya-pradese, pratyekarh dve I nasa va 
ghan-aik5sthimati '^ I parsukah pafijar-asthini, sthalais^tad- 
adhara-bhutairiJasthibhiriJarbuda-namakairc^asthi-visesaisjJca saha 
dvisaptatih I ityiJevam^eka^itir^asthnam bhavati II 

[Verse 90.] sankhakau bhru-karn-antaral-asthini dvau I 
sirasah kapalani catvari I urah prati saptadas^^asthlni I ityiJevam 
trayoviriisatih I evam militva sasty-adhikam sata-trayami^iti puru- 
sasya manusasya asthi-parimanam II 

* MS. vara-dvayam, om. carana-dvayam. ^ MS. catustaye tvaih. 
° MS. Bandhih. * MS. vakso sariidhi. ^ MS. aksni. 

' MS. aksa, '' MS. uasavadbanaikastliimati. 



[Verse 84.] The pair of hands, the pair of feet, the head, and 
the trunk — these are the six parts of the body. They contain 
the three hundred and sixty bones which are detailed in the 
following- six verses : 

[Verse 85.] The thirty-two teeth (dania), together with their 
thirty-two sockets {sthdia), that is, with the bones which form 
the basements of the teeth, number sixty-four. The nails 
(naMa) of the hands and feet number twenty. Also the pencil- 
like long bones [mldkd) which are in the hands and feet, and 
which are situated in front of the wrist and ankle, number 
twenty. With regard to the nails and long bones, there are 
four places [sthdna) which form their foundations, viz. the pair 
of hands and the pair of feet. Thus, here (in this verse), the 
total of the bones is one hundred and four. The ' four places ' 
are named as considered apart from their component bones ; on 
the other hand, since the bases of the nails are identical with 
the lono- bones, the fourfoldness of the latter is also mentioned 
in order to indicate their forming- sets in each hand and foot ; 
there is therefore here no incongruity.^ 

[Verse 86.] In the digits [angull) there are sixty bones, on 
account of each digit being composed of three bones. In the 
heels (jMrsni), that is, the posterior part of the two feet, there 
are two bones. In either foot there are two ankle-bones {(julplia), 
two on the right and two on the left sides ; thus there are four 
bones in the four ankles. The two arms (hdku), being implied 
in the term 'forearms' {aratni)^ make up four bones. Thus we 
have a total of seventy-four bones. 

[Verse 87.] The two knees {jdnv) are the two joints between 
the leg and the thigh. By the two kapola are meant the two 
cheeks. The two broad bones of the thigh [uru-pJialaka) refer 
to the lower limbs. The two shoulders {amsa) are the two bases 
whence the arms spring. Each of these items consists of two 
bones. By the two aksa are meant the spaces intermediate be- 
tween the ear and the eye. By the two tdlusaka are meant the 

* See the Exegetical Note in § 83. 


two bases of the palate. The two broad bones {phalaka) of Sroni 
are the two hips. Each of these items consists of two bones. 
This makes altog-ether fourteen bones. 

[Verse 88.] The word ' vulva ' {bhagd) indicates also the penis ; 
it consists of one bone. In the back [j.r^tha) there are forty-five 
bones ; grivd, or the neck, is made up of fifteen bones. By jatru 
are meant the two junctions of breast and shoulder, each con- 
sisting of one bone. Hanu signifies the chin. This makes 
a total of sixty-four bones. 

[Verse 89.] At the back of that chin there are two bones. 
As to the forehead, eye, and gam] a, that is, the space inter- 
mediate between the cheek and the eye, there are two bones in 
each. The nose (udsd) consists of one bone, called also ghana. 
The ribs [parhika) are the bones of the (thoracic) cage ; together 
with their sockets {stJtdlaka) or supporting bones, and with the 
peculiar bones called tubercles {arlmda), they number seventy- 
two. This makes a total of eighty-one bones. 

[Verse 90.] The temples {^ankJia), that is, the bones lying 
between the eyebrow and the ear, number two. The pan-shaped 
bones [kapdla) of the cranium number four. In the breast 
{vrah) there are seventeen bones. This makes a total of twenty- 
three bones. Adding up all these we obtain three hundred and 
sixty as the grand total of the bones of the human body. 

J 83. Exegetical Note 

Comparing the commentaries quoted in the preceding para- 
graphs 79-82, it will be seen that, in verse 85, Apararka counts 
a total of 108, while Vijnanesvara, who is followed by Sulapani 
and Mitramisra, counts only 104. The cause of this difference 
is that in the text of that verse Apararka read tdsdm, of them 
(feminine), while Vijnanesvara read temm, of them (masculine). 
The former form, being the feminine genitive plural, can refer 
only to the preceding feminine noun saldkd, long bone, while 
the latter form, being the masculine genitive plural, must refer 
to the preceding masculine noun nakha, nail. Accordingly, 
Apararka understands the text to mean: 'The nails number 


twenty; so also the long- bones of the hands and feet (scl. 
number twenty); the bases of them (i.e. of the long- bones) are 
four.' This interpretation enumerates three different items : 
(1) nails, (2) long- bones, (3) bases of long- bones. On the other 
hand, Vijnanesvara understands the text to mean : ' The nails 
number twenty ; so also the long- bones of the hands and 
feet {scl. number twenty) ; the bases of them (i.e. of the nails) 
are four.' Seeing- that the nails are fixed in the digits, and that 
the bases of the digits are the long- bones of the hands and feet, 
it follows that the bases of the nails are identical with the long 
bones of the hands and feet. Hence Vijnanesvara's interpreta- 
tion admits only two items, namely : (1) nails, (2) long bones or 
bases of nails. The second item, as Mitramisra explains, may be 
considered in two ways — either distributively, or in the aggre- 
gate. Considered distributively, the long bones number twenty ; 
but considered as aggregates {samuddi/a), they number only four, 
that is, two hands and two feet. On the other hand, if, with 
Apararka, we translate ' bases of the long bones ', we obtain, of 
course, a third item, namely, the carpus and tarsus. The question 
arises : Which is the correct reading of the text ; is it tdsdm or 
tesdm ; feminine or masculine ? The answer cannot be doubtful : 
obviously the correct reading is the feminine tdsdm, referring to 
mldkd, or the long bones. It is correct for two quite sufficient 
reasons : (1) with the reading tesdm, the bones of the carpus and 
tarsus drop out altogether ; (2) with the same reading, the four 
aggregates of the long bones, that is, really the long bones 
themselves, are declared to be the bases of the nails; but 
obviously that is an incongruous view : the nails are fixed on 
the digits, and the digits are fixed on the long bones. As 
Apararka rightly says, ' The long bones are the bases of the 
digits ; and the bases of the long bones are four,' namely, 
the two carpi of the hands and the two tarsi of the feet. 
Hence the total of the bones, enumerated in verse 85, is 108; 
but not 104. 


§ S4:. The Non-medical Version in the Institutes 

of Vishnu 

The recension of the Non-medical Version in the Institutes of 
Vishnu is edited from the following" sources : 

1. ASBi = Asiatic Society of Beng-al, MS. No. II A 10. 

2. ASB^ = „ „ „ MS. No. II A 11. 

3. ASB3 = „ „ „ MS. No. I B 25. 

4. C^ = Calcutta,SanskritColIeg-e, MS. No. 5. 

5. C^ = „ „ „ MS. No. 62. 

6. Di = Deccan CoUeg-e, MS. No. 19. 

7. D2 = „ „ MS. No. 20. 

8. D3 = „ „ MS. No. 155. 

9. El = Elphinstone CoUeg-e, Bombay, MS. No. 162. 

10. E2 = „ „ „ MS. No. 174. 

11. 10^ = India Office, MS. No. 200. 

12. 102 = „ „ MS. No. 540. 

13. 103 ^ ^^ ^^ MS. No. 913. 

14. 10^ = „ „ MS. No. 915. 

15. 105 ^ ^^ _^ MS. No. 1545. 

16. 10^ = „ „ MS. No. 1247. 

17. M = Madras, Oriental Library, MS. No. 87. 

18. Y = Professor Jolly's Edition, pp. 196, 197. 
It runs as follows : 

II 55 I Asthnarh tribhih sataih sasty-adhikairi^dharyamanam i 
56 I tesam vibhag-ah I 57 suksmaih saha catuhsastir^dasanah I 58 I 
vimsativi^nakhah 1 59 1 1 pani-pada-salakas<;cal60 I sastir^angullnarii 
parvani I 61 I dve parsnyoh I 62 I catustayarh gulphesu I 63 I cat- 
vary^aratnyoh I 64 I catvary^janghayoh I 65 I dve dve janu-kapo- 
layoh " I 66 1 I urv-amsayoh I 67 I aksa-talusaka-sroniphalakesu I 
68^ I bhag-asthy^ekaml69 Iprsth-asthi pancacatvarirhsad-bhagam 

^ C^ 10' read No. 59, dvau baliudaka (or taka) -dvayam ; IC^ M, 
dve bahu dve prabahu uru-dvayam. Al o all four omit No. 66. 
ASB^ also omits No. 66, though it has No. 59. 

' 10^ kapalayoh. 

' C* 10^ ' read No. 68 evam adhah ; E' reads bhagakhekait prstha- 



I 70 I paiicadasi^asthlni grlva I 71 ' I jatrvi^ekam I 72 I tatha hanuh i 
73 1 tan-mule ca dve I 74 ^ I dve lalut-aksi-g-ande I 75 ^ I nasa ffhan- 
asthika I 76 l arbudaih sthalakaisi^ca saidharh dvasaptatih pars- 
vakah I 77 ^ I urah saptadasa I 78 I dvau sankhakau I 79 I catvari 
kapalani sirasas^c^^eti II 

I 55 I The body is sustained by three hundred and sixty bones. 
I 56 I Their detail is as follows. I 57 I Tog-ether with the 
minute (sockets) there are sixty- four teeth {damna). I 58 I The 
nails number twenty. I 59 I So also the long- bones of the hands 
and feet (number twenty). I 60 I In the digits there are sixty 
joints. I 61 I There are two bones in the two heels; 62 I 
Four, in the ankles ; I 63 I Four, in the two forearms ; I 64 i 
Four, in the tw o leg's ; I 65 I Two each, in the knees and 
elbows ; 1 66 I And in the thighs and shoulders ; I 67 I And in 
the collar-bones, palate, and hip-blades. I 68 1 There is one 
pubic bone. I 69 I The backbone consists of forty-five parts. 
I 70 I The neck has fifteen bones. I 71 I The windpipe has 
one bone ; I 72 I So also the chin. I 73 I Its bases number 
two. I 74 I So do the brows, eyes, and cheeks. I 75 I The 
nose consists of the ghana-hone. I 76 I Together with the tu- 
bercles and sockets the ribs number seventy-two. I 77 I The 
breast has seventeen bones. I 78 I There are two temples. 
I 79 1 And there are four pan-shaped bones in the cranium. 

J 85. The Comme7ita7y of Nanda Pandita 

The commentary of Nanda Pandita^ called Faija^anil, is 
edited from the following manuscripts : 

1. ASB3 = Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. I B 25. 

2. C- = Calcutta Sanskrit College, No. 62. 

3. E2 = Elphinstone College, Bombay, No. 174. 

^ ASB'-' janv^^ekam ; C^ janukam ; 10^ jatrukam. 

' C lalataksini mate ; 10'^ lalaksitanigate ; 10^ lalataksinlgate ; M 

^ ASB' nasa sthanasthika ; C^ nasayamiJasthika ; lO'^ nasa gramas- 
thika ; 10' nasa vamasthika ; M nasa gnamastliika. 

■• C etakadakyah ; 10' M ka urah ; 10' edakadakyah. 


4. 10^ = India Office, No. 200. 

5. 10* = „ „ No. 915. 

6. 10^ = „ „ No. 1545. 
It runa as follows : 

[55] Anga-pratj^ang-a-samsthitanaiii sthula-suksmanaoK^asth- 
uam trini satani sastis^ca samkhya I taih sarlram dharyate i 
tianvcJanyany^apy^agre gananlyani, tat^katham^iyam samkhya. 
ity^atra aha II 

[56] vaksyamano vibhagasi^tesamc^eva avadheyo n^atirikta- 
nam li 

[57] Suksmani danta-mula-bhutany^asthlni sthal-akhyani 
dvatrimsat I tavanta eva tad-utpanna dantasi^taih saha catuhsas- 
tir^bhavanti I sthalaili saha catuhsastir<;danta iti Yofiri-smara- 
nat II 

[58] hasta-pada-stha nakha vimsatih II 

[59] kara-padayoh prsthe salak-akarany<;anguli-niula-bhutani 
vimsatiri^eva asthini II 

[60] pratyekam vimsaty^aiigullnaih trlni trIni parvani 1 ity^ 
evam sastih parv-asthini II 

[61] parsnih pani-pada-pascadbhagas^tayori^asthinl dve II 

[62] gulphau ghutike, jangha-pada-granthitau ea I pratyekarii 
padayor^dvau dvav^ity^evarh catvaro gulphasi^tesu catvary^ 
asthini II 

[63] aratnir^aratniman bahus^^tatra pratyekam dve dve ity<j 
evam catvari II 

[64] jangha janghavan padah I tayoh pratyekam dve dve ity^ 
evam catvari II 

[65] jangh-oru-sandhiriyanuh I kapolo gandasi^tayoh pratyekarii 
dve dve ity^evaih catvari II 

[66] uru sakthini I aiiisau bhuja-sirasT I tayoh pratyekaih dve 
dve ity^evarii catvari II 

[67] aksah karna-netrayor^madhya-bhavah sankh-adhobha- 
gah I talusakam kakudam I sroniphalakarii katih I etesu trisvi^api 
pratyekam dve dve ity^^evaih sat II 

[68] bhaga upasthasc^tatri^aikam^asthi 11 

[69] prstha-asthi prstha-vamso 'pi pancaeatvaririisad-asthi- 
kah II 

[70] griva siro-dhara I tasyarh pancadas^^asthlni II 

P 2 


[71] vakso-'msayoh sandhirijjatru I tayoli pratyekam^ekaikam^ 
evarh dve jatrunl II 

[72] hanns^cibukam I tatr;::aikam^asthi ii 

[73] tasya hanori^mula-bhute dve asthini II 

[74] lalatam bhalam I aksi caksuli I g-andah kapol-aksayori^ 
madhya-bhrig-asi^tesarii samaharo lalat-aksi-g-andam I tatra pratye- 
karii dve dve asthini ifcy^evam sat II 

[75] nasa nasika I sa ea g-hana-samjncfaik-asthimatl II 

[76] parsvakah vankrayah I pratyekam parsvayosi^trayodasa 
trayodasa iti sadvimsatih I tasam vaksasi sandhy-asthlny^arbu- 
dany^ubhayato dasa dasa iti vimsatih I sannam parsvakanrim 
paraspar-adharataya ev^avasthanen^arbud-anapeksatvat I tasam^ 
eva prsthatah sandhy-asthini sthalaka ubhayatas^trayodasa 
iti sadvimsatirijity^evam sthalak-arbuda-samhitah. parsvaka dvi- 
saptatih II 

[771 ^^^o vaksasi^tati^saptadas-asthikam II 

[78] bhru-karnay origan tarvartini asthini sankhakau dvau II 

[79] sirasas^eatvari kapalani I ca-karah samuceitanam^ukta- 
samkhya-purakatva-dyotan-arthah I iti vibhaga-samasau II 


[55] The number of the bones, large and minute, which con- 
stitute the major and minor limbs, is three hundred and sixty. 
They uphold the body. In the following- clauses the author 
shows how they are to be counted. 

[56] The details g-iven below refer to them only, and not to 
any others. 

[57] The minute bones {sukma) which form the bases of the 
teeth, and which are called sockets (st/id/a), number thirty-two. 
The teeth (danta), set in them, number as many. Both tog-ether 
number sixty-four. ' Together with the sockets the teeth number 
sixty-four ' — such is the traditional teaching of the Yogin ^ (see 
§ 77). 

[58] The nails {naklia), set in the hands and feet, number 

[59] The pencil-like (m/dM) bones in the back of the hands 
and feet, which form the bases of the digits, number twenty. 

^ Yogin is one of the names of Yajnavalkya. 


[60] In each of the twenty digits {angvli) there are three 
joints ; thus we have sixty joint-bones. 

[61] The heel (pdrsni) is the posterior portion of the hands 
and feet. Their bones number two. 

[62] GulpJia sig-nifies the two ankles which knit together the 
leg and the foot. In each foot there are two of these. Thus 
there are four ankles, and in them there are four bones. 

[63] Aratni signifies the whole arm {hdhn) or upper limb, in- 
clusive of the forearm. In each of these there are two bones ; 
hence there are altogether four bones. 

[64] Janylid signifies the whole foot {^mdd), or lower limb. In 
each of these there are two bones ; hence there are altogether 
four bones. 

[65] The knee {jdtiu) is the joint of the leg and thigh. Ka- 
pola signifies the cheek. In each there are two bones. Hence 
there are altogether four bones. 

[66] Uru signifies the thigh; the shoulder (amsa) is the head 
of the arm. In each of these there are two bones. Hence there 
are altogether four bones. 

[67] Akm signifies the lower portion of the temples, situated 
between the ear and the eye. Tdlwmka signifies the hard palate, 
and sroniplialaka, the hip. In each of these three there are two 
bones. Hence there are altogether six bones. 

[68] Bhaga signifies the generative organ. In this there is 
one bone. 

[69] The back [pri^tJia) or vertebral column is composed of 
forty-five bones. 

[70] The neck [grivd) is the organ which supports the head. 
In it there are fifteen bones. 

[71] Jatru signifies the junction of the breast and the shoulder. 
In either of the two (junctions) there is one bone. Hence there 
are two jatru, or collar-bones. 

[72] Hamc signifies the chin. In it there is one bone. 

[73] At the base of the chin {Jiaiiu-mula) there are two 

[74] Laldta signifies the forehead or brow; ah'i, the eye; 
and gaiula^ the part intermediate between the cheek and the eye. 
Their combination is expressed by the compound term laJdt- 


ahi-ganfla. In each of them there are two bones. Hence 
there are altog-ether six bones. 

[75] Ndsd signifies the nose. It is also termed the ghana- 
])one, and it contains one bone. 

[76] Pdrhaka sig'nifies the ribs. On either of the two 
sides of the body there are thirteen ribs, that is, altogether 
twenty-six. On either side are ten arhnda, or bones which join 
them to the breast-bone, that is, altog-etber twenty. As to six 
ribs, they mutually support one another without any reference 
to any arbuda. On either side, also, there are thirteen stJidlaka, 
or bones which connect the ribs with the back-bone, that is, 
altogether twentf-six. In this way, the ribs, together with the 
sthdlaka and arbuda, number seventy-two. 

\77'\ Uras signifies the breast ; that consists of seventeen 

[78] The temples {rnvkhaka), or the bones which are situated 
between the eyebrows and the ears, number two. 

[79] In the cranium there are four pan-shaped [kapdia) bones. 
The object of the word ' and ' is to make clear that the bones, 
when added together, make up the total number (360) pre- 
viously stated. Thus the bones have now been stated both in 
detail and in the aggregate. 

^86. The Non-medical Version in the Pur anas 

The recensions of the Non-medical Version in the Agni 
Purana, and in the Vishnu Dharmottara Purana are identical. 
The former is edited from (1) 10 = India Office MS., No. 5 (7) 
of the Surindra Mohun Collection ; (2) RM = Rajendra Mitra's 
edition, vol. Ill, pp. 308-9. The latter is edited from' T = Tii- 
bingen University Library MS., M. a. I. 483. 

They run as follows : 

Asthnanitfatra satani syus^^trini sasty-adhikani ca^ II 27 II 
Suksmaih saha catuhsastir^dasana vimsatir^nakhah I 

pani-pada-salakasi^ca tasam sthana-catustayam II 28 II 
SastycJangulInam dve parsnyor^fgulphesu ca catustayam I 

^ 10, RM read ouly a half-verse ; asthi-sasti-sata-trayam. 


catvaryi^aratnyoi-i^asthlni jang-hayosi^tavad^eva tu II 29 1 1 
Dve dve janu-kapol-oruphalak-amsasamudbhave I 

aksa-talusake ^ sroniphalake c^aivamiJadiset II 30 II 
Bhag-asthy^ekaih ^ tatha prsthe catvarimsaciica pancakam I 

grlva paScadas^asthlni ^ jatrvi^ekarh ca* tatha hanuh ^ II 31 II 
Tan-mule dve lalat-aksi-gande nasa g-han-asthika ° I 

parsukah stbalakaih sardham<Jarbudaisc;ca dvisaptatih II 32 II 
Dve sankhake ^ kapalani catvary^^eva siras^tatha I 

urah saptadasi^asthlni purusasy^asthi-samgrahah ^ II 33 II 


[Verse 27.] There are three hundred and sixty bones. 

[Verse 28.] Together with the minute bones (suksma), the teeth 
{(lamna) number sixty-four ; the nails (^laklia) twenty ; so also 
the long bones [mldkd) of the hands and feet; their bases 
[stJidna) are four. 

[Verse 29.] In the dig-its [angtili] there are sixty bones ; in 
the two heels (pdrmi) two ; in the ankles (ff7(ljj//a) four ; in the 
two forearms (arafni) four ; also as many in the two legs 

[Verse 30.] There are two bones each in the knees (jdfiu), 
cheeks {kapold)^ thighs {uniphalaka), and shoulder-blades (arma- 
mmudhhavd). Also as many are indicated in the collar-bones 
{akm), palatal cavities [fdlusaka), and hips {sroni-phalaka). 

[Verse 31.] There is one pubic bone {hlmgasthi), and there are 
forty-five bones in the back (pr-^i/m). The neck [gilvd) contains 
fifteen bones, the windpipe [jatrii) one ; so also the chin {Jiann). 

[Verse 32.] At the base of the chin {lianu-vnda) there are 
two bones ; so also in the brows [laldta), eyes (ak-^i) and cheeks 
[ganf]a). The nose (ndsd) consists of the g/iana-hone. The ribs, 

^ 10 sthanopaka, RM sthanamsake ; T aksi-sthane katl yoni- 

* T bhage tv^^^ekam. 

' 10 grlva pailca tath^^asthlni ; RM grlvayaih ca tatb^asthiui ; 
T grivayam ca das-asthlni. 

* 10, RM jatrukaih ca ; T jatrvisasthy^ekara. 
5 T hanoh. 

" 10, RM nas^aughry-ava&thitah ; T nasa-samasthitj^. 

' T dvau sankhakau. 

^ 10, RM cm. purusasy^asthi-samgrahali. 


together with their sockets [sthdlaka) and tubercles {arhudoi)^ 
number seventy-two. 

[Verse 33.] There are two temples [Saiikhaka) ; there are also 
four pan-shaped bones (Icapdla) in the cranium. The breast 
(uras) contains seventeen bones. These are the bones of the 
human skeleton. 

^87. The Non-medical Version in the 'Anatomy ' 

The recension of the Non-medical Version in the anonymous 
' Anatomy ' (§ 23), edited from the Tiibing-en (T) University 
Library MS., M. a. I. 483 (Catalogue No. 167), fol. 5 b, runs as 
follows : — 
Sad^angani sarirani I I 

sastih sata-trayarh c^^asthnam I ^11 127 II 

Tad-yatha I dvau bahfi dve sakthini, siro madhyam^iti sad- 

angam II sastih sata-trayam Ci^asthnam^iti ^ II 
Danta dvatrimsadcfakhyatah s-oluka, vimsatiri^nakhah I 

pani-pada-salakas^ca, tasarii sthana-catusta3^am II 128 II 
Sasty^angulinam, dve parsnyor^gulphesu ca catustayam I 

eatvary^aratnik-asthlni, janghayas^tavad^eva tu ll 129 II 
Dvav^arhsavc?amsaphalake dve, hasta-manikav<;ubhau I 

dvau bahu-nalakav^iiru-nalakau, dve ca taluni ^ II 130 II 
Netre dve, januni dve ca, dve ca janu-kapalike I 

dve sroniphalake, dve ca hanu-mulasya bandhane^ ll 131 II 
Bhage tvi^ekam, tatha prsthe catvarimsac^ca pancakam I 

grivayaih ca das^asthini, jatrv<^ekam tu, tatha hanuh 11 132 11 
Tadvan^mukhe mataiii nasa-gandakuta-lalatakam 1 

parsvakah kaulakaih sardharh arbudais^^ca ^ dvisaptatih II 133 ll 
Dvau sankhakau, kapalani catvari sirasas^; tatha I 

urah saptadas-asthi^Iti ^ purasasy^-asthi-sairigrahah 11 134 II 

^ Two half-verses of the text, respecting the number of skins and 
muscles, are omitted. 

^ This clause is a commentary in prose on the preceding verse. 

^ Verses 130 and 131 are a recast of verse 87 of the recension of 
Yajnavalkya (§ 77). 

* MS. arbudais^tu. ^ MS. asthini. 



[Verse 127.] The bodies consist of six parts ; the number 

of bones is three hundred and sixty 

[Commentary.] As thus : the two upper extremities, the two 
lower extremities, the head, and the trunk, — these are the six 
parts. The three hundred and sixty bones are as follows : 

[Verse 128.] The thirty-two teeth {danta) are enumerated 
along- with their sockets {n(uka) ; the nails {naklia) number 
twenty ; so also the long- bones {hldkd) of the hands and feet ; 
their bases {sthdna) are four. 

[Verse 129.] There are sixty bones in the digits {anguli) ; 
two in the heels [punni), and four in the ankles {gulpha). 
There are four bones in the forearms {aratnikd), and there are as 
many in the legs (^javghd). 

[Verse 130.] There are two collar-bones (amsa), two shoulder- 
blades {amm-phalaka), two wrist-bones {manika) in either hand, 
two hollow bones of the arm {hdhu), two hollow bones of the 
thigh (urn), and two palates {tdlu). 

[Verse 131.] There are two eyes [netra], two knee-caps [jdnn), 
as well as two elbow-pans {kapdllkd), two hip-blades [srouipfialaka), 
and two tie-bones at the base of the (lower) jaw {hanu-mula). 

[Verse 132.] There is one bone in the pubes {bhaga) ; also 
there are forty and five bones in the back {prstka), as well as 
ten in the neck (gnvd). The windpipe {jatrn) consists of one 
bone ; so also the (lower) jaw {Jianu). 

[Verse 133.] Likewise in the face there is considered to be 
one bone consisting of the nose [ndsd), the prominences of the 
cheeks {cjandakuta), and the brows {laldta). The ribs [pdrSvaka), 
together with their sockets (kaulaka^) and tubercles {arbuda), 
number seventy-two. 

[Verse 134.] There are two temples {miikhaka) \ also there 
are four pan-shaped [kapdla) bones of the cranium. The breast 
(uras) consists of seventeen bones. This is the aggregate of the 
bones of man. 

^ Probably false reading for kolaka, diminutive of kola, flank, 
Kolaka would mean a small flank, or side-bone, and would be a good 
term for the transverse process of a vertebra. 


B. The System of Susruta 
§ 88. The Traditional Recension of Susruta' s System 

The traditional recension of the System of Susruta is edited 
from the following- materials : 

1. A = Alwar Palace Library MS., No. 1703. 

2. B = Benares Sanskrit College MS., No. 23 (old No. 64). 

3. Bdi = Bodleian MS., No. 1092 (Hultzsch 349). 

4. Bd2 = „ MS., No. 739 (Wilson 290). 

5. D^ = Deecan College MS., No. 224. 

6. D2= „ „ MS., No. 466. 

7. D3= „ „ MS., No. 948. 

8. D4= „ „ MS., No. 949. 

9. D' = „ „ MS., No. 956. 

10. IQi = India Office MS., No. 72 d (Cat. No. 2645). 

11. 102 = „ „ MS., No. 1842 (Cat. No. 2646). 

12. EG = Edition of Madhusudan Gupta (Calcutta). 

13. EJ = ,, of Jivananda (Calcutta). 

14. EM = „ of Madras. 

15. EP = ,, of Prabhuram Jivanaram (Bombay). 

16. CD = Commentary of Dallana. 

17. CG = „ of Gayadasa. 
It runs as follows : 

TrJni sa-sastiny^i^asthi-satani veda-vadino bhasante I salya- 
tantre tu ^ trlny^eva satani ^ I tesam sa-vimsam*^asthi-satarh 
sakhasu I saptadasi^ottaram satam sroni-parsva-prsth-odar-orassu ^ I 
grlvam^ praty-urdhvam trisastih I "^ evam^asthnam trTni sa- 
tani puryante 11 ^ Ekaikasyam tu pad-angulyaiii trini trini, tani 
pancadasa I tala-kurca-gulpha^-samsritani dasa I parsnyam^^ 

' So Bd^, EJ, EM, EP ; but A, EG sa-sastany ; B sa-sastyany ; 
D^ 10^ sasty-adhikani ; Bd^ D^ 10^ only sastany • D^-^ only sasty. 

' D-=''"' cm. tu ; D« 10^ tantresu. " " 

"" B, J)\ D--'* asthi-satani. * Bd^ vimsottaram. 

^ B odarossu ; so also originally 10^ ; 10^ reads sroni-prstha-paisv- 
oio-ksassu for °oro-'ksesu or °parsv-aks-orassu. 

' A grivayam. ^ g^ Bd^D^^ I0'-2 om. this clause. 

* A prefixes prthak-prthag-ganana. 

9 1)^ XO' tala-gulpha-kurca '; Bd^ tala-tala-kurca-gulpha. 


ekam ^ I jang-hayam dve ^ I janunyc?ekam I ekam^i^urav^iti trimsat I 
evam ^^ekasmin sakthni bhavanti I eten^etara-sakthi ^ bahu ca 
vyakhyatau I sronyam panca, tesam bhaga-guda^-nitambesu 
catvari, trika-samsritam^ekam I parsve sattrimsat I evam^cf 
ekasmin, dvitlye 'py^evam I prsthe trimsat I astav^urasi I dve 
aksaka-saihjne^ I gTlvayaih nava^ I kanthanadyam catvaii I 
dve hanvoh^ I danta ^'^ dvatrimsat I nasayam trlni I ekarii 
taluni I ganda-karna-sankhesvi^ekaikam I sat^^sirasi II 

Immediately after the above-given Number-list follows the 
Class-list as follows : 

Etanyi^astblni panca-vidhani bhavanti I tad^^yatha I kapala- 
rucaka-taruna-valaya-nalaka-samjnani i tesam janu-kurpara^^- 
nitamb-amsa<;ganda-talu-sankha-vanksanamadhya^^ - sirassu ka- 
palani I dasanas^tu rucakah I g-hrana-karna-grlv-aksikosesu taru- 
nani I pani-pada-parsva-prsthodar-orassu^^ valayani I sesani 
nalaka-samjnani II 

For the translation, see §§ 27 and 30. 

^89. Restored Recension 

The original form of the osteological summary of Susrula 
may be restored as follows, differences from the traditional re- 
cension being shown in italics : — 

Trlni sa-sastlnyi;asthi-satani vedavadino bhasante I salya- 
tantre tu trlny^eva satani I tesarii ■^ad-uttaram'^dkSiihi-iaXiim. sa- 
khasu I astdinmmtT/-\\iii!iriim satarii sroni-parsva-prsth-«7?/5-orassu I 
giivam praty-urdhvaiii satmstih I evam^^asthnam trlni satani 
puryante II Ekaikasyarii tu pad-angulyam trlni trlni, tani panca i 
tala-gulpha-kurca-samsritani sajjta \ parsnyam^ekam I jaiigha- 

^ D^ ekaikam. ^ D^ dve dve, D' jaughayor^dve. 

^ A eva. * A etara-sakthni, Bd^ etare sakthni. 

5 A, EG, EJ, EP, CD, CG guda-bhaga. 

® B, D^ * cm. evam. '' B aksa-samjiie. 

8 A, I0\ EG, EJ, EM, EP navakam. 

" B hane, 10^ hano. ^^ Bd^ dantautesu. 

" So B, 10^ ; but Bd'-2 D'-^^*-^ ^ jo\ EG, EJ, EM, EP cm. kurpara. 

'2 So B, D' ; but 10^-2 cm. vanksana, while A, Bdl■^ D^-^-* •^ EG, 
EJ, EM, EP cm. vaiiksanamadh^a. 

1=* So B, Bd' ^ D^ \b\ EG, EJ, EM, EP ; but D'-2 prsth-odarahsu ; 
D* IC^ prsth-odaresu ; D* prsth-odarisau. 


yam dve I janunyi^ekam I ekam^urav^iti saptavimSatik I evartii^ 
ekasmin^Jsakthni bhavanti I eten^etara-sakthi, bahu ca vyakh- 
yatau I sronyarh pafica, tesarii bhag-a-g-uda-nitambesu catvari, 
trika-samsritamcfekam I parsve sattrirhsat I evam^ekasmin^dvi- 
%6 'py^evam I prsthe trimsat I sapfadahorasi I dve akmk-di'maje I 
grlvayam nava I kanthanadyam catvari I dve hanvoh I danta 
dvatrimsat I nasayam trini I dve taluni I gand-aksikosa-karna- 
sankhesvi^ekaikam I sat^sirasi II 

Etany^asthlni panea-vidhani bhavanti I tad-yatha I kapala- 
rucaka-taruna-valaya-nalaka-sarhjnani I tesaih janu-kurpara-ni- 
tamb-am*(7;a-ganda-talu-sankha-vanksaiiamadhya-sirassu kapa- 
lani I dasanasi^tu rueakah I g-hrana-karna-grlv-aksikosesu taru- 
nani I pani-pada-parsva-prsth-odar-orassu valayani I sesani nalaka- 
sarhjnani bhavanti II 

For the translation, see §§ 30 and 34. 

} 90. Tlie Recension of Gangddhar 

Gangadhar's recension of the osteological summary of Susruta, 
extracted from his Berhampore edition of the Caraka Samhifd, 
p. 188, 11. 5-14, runs as follows, differences from the traditional 
recension being shown in italics : — 

Atha punah Sausrute salya-tantre tu trlny^^eva satani I tesam^ 
a-^fot/ara-iatam sakhasu I 5«(/t/;'^-uttara-satam sroni-parsva- 
prsth-ff^^f-orahsu I grivam praty-urdhvam satmstih I evam^asthnam 
trlni satani puryante II Ekaikasyam tu pad-angulyam trIni trIni, 
tani pancadasa I tala-kurca-gulpha-sarhsritani sapta I parsnav^ 
ekam I janghayara dve I januny^ekam I ekam^urav^iti sajda- 
vimmtk'^^e'ksismin sakthni bhavanti I eten^etara-sakthi, bahu ca 
vyakhyatau I tdny<'ast-oUara-mtam'>asthiam I sronyam pafica, te- 
sarh dve nitambe, guda-bhaga-trika-samsritam^ekaikarii I parsve 
sattrimsat I evam^^ekasmini^dvitlye 'py^evam I prsthe tririisat I 
dve aksa-samjne I saptada^^.ox^^\ I grlvayami^e^af/a*a I kanthanad- 
yam catvari I dve hanvoh I danta dvatrimsat I nasayam trlni i 

dve taluni I ganda-karna-sankhesv^ekaikam, tani sat I satcf 
/. . * ' . . . . 

sirasi II 

For the translation, see § 35. 


^91, The Systems of SuSruta in the 
Sm'ira Padminl 

1. The statement of the system of Susruta in the SdnraPadmim, 
and its commentary, edited from a manuscript in the possession of 
Dr. P. Cordier, runs as follows : 

Kikasaih tri-sata-samkhyamcfathi;adyaisiJsalya-tantra upayuktami? 
ih^oktam I 
vimsatisi^ca satam^apy^adhi-sakham sroni-parsva udar-orasi 
prsthe II 70 II 
Sapta-yukta-dasa-satam syat ^ try-uttar-opari sirodhisu sastih i 
anka-samkalanatas^trisat^ittham pancadh^akrti-bhida punar<; 
etat II 71 II 

Por the translation, see § 36. 

2. The commentary of Vaidyanatha, called Padmirii Prahodha, 
on the above-given statement runs as follows : 

Sarire 'sthnaih sara-bhutataya tad-vivaranara^^^aha * kikasam ' 
ity^^adi l 'kikasam Vasthi ' tri-sata-samkhyam ' ahuh ' salya-tantra ' 
upayoga-vasena salya-tantra upayuktatvad^fityi^arthah I tad- 
iipayuktata tu granth-antarajVjneya I katham tri-sata-samkhyam 
bhavati ity^aha 'vimsatir' ity-adi I ' adhi-sakham ' sarva-sakhasu 
' vimsatisi^ca satam^api ' I yatha I pratyekam pad-angulyaiii trini 
trini iti pancadasa l30l tala^-gulpha-kurca-samsritani dasai20i50l 
jaiighayor^dve I 4 I 54 l parsnavi^ekam I 2 l 56 I januny^ekam I 2 I 
58 I uravc^ekam I 2 l 60 I sakthnoh sastih I 120 ^ II 'sroni-parsva 
udar-orasi prsthe sapta-yukta-dasa-satam ' I yatha ) guda-bhagayor^ 
dve I 2 I nitambayor^dve I 2 I trika-samsritam^^ekam I 1 I sronyam 
panca I 5 I parsvayor^dvisaptatih I 72 I 77 I prsthe trimsat I 30 i 
107 I dve aksa-samsakte I 2 I 109 I astav^^urasi I 8 I 117 II evam 
< upari sirodhisu' I grivam praty-urdhvarii ' try^uttara sastih' I 
yatlia I grivayaria nava 1 9 I kanthanadyam catvari I 4 I 13 I dve 
hanvoh I 2 I 15 I nasayarii trini I 3 I 18 1 ekarh taluni I 1 I 19 l ganda- 
karna-sankhesv^ekaikarh I 6 I 25 I sat sirasi I 6 I 31 I dvatririisadi^ 
dantah I 32 I 63 1 'Ittham:?anka^samkalanatasi^trisati ' I yatha 1 120 I 
117 I 63 I 300 II 

^ Short by two instants. ' MS. cm. tala. 

^ See Note below. 


Note: In the original manuscript, the clauses, which refer to 
the first ag-g-reg-ate 120, run as follows : 

yatha i pratyekaih pad-angiilyam trlni trlni iti pancadasa i 30 i 
gulpha-kfirca^samsritani dasa I 10 I 50 I jarighayori^dve I 2 I 52 I 
parsnav^ekam ill 53 I jannny^ekam I 1 I 54 I urav^^ekaih I 55 I 
sakthuoh sastih I 60 I 115 I guda-bhagayori^dve I 2 I 117 I nitam- 
bayor^dve i 2 I 119 I trika-samsritam^ekam 1 1 1 120 II 

Obviously this reading is quite absurd, and must be due to 
some ignorant copyist who failed to recognize the accidental 
misplacement of the three clauses : guda-hhagatjor-xlve, niiamhayor<' 
dve^ and trika-sam!iritam<-ekam, which should not precede, but 
follow the clause sroni-pdrsva, &c. 


Because of the conciseness of the statement of the bones of 
the body, he makes the -comment which begins with klkasa, &:c. 
' Klkasa, or the bones of the skeleton, number three hundred ' ; 
this is said on the authority of the count in surgical text- 
books ; for this is meant by the phrase ' in accordance with the 
count in the Surgical Text-book ^ But that count itself must 
be learned from treatises other (than the Sdnra Padminl). In 
order to explain how the number three hundred arises, he goes 
on to say ' vi/hhfi, or twenty, &c,' ^ Adhimkham, or in all the 
limbs together,' there are one hundred and twenty bones. As 
thus : in each digit of the foot there are three, making fifteen 
(i. e. 30 in both feet) ; in the sole, ankle, and cluster there are 
altogether ten (i. e. 20 in both feet ; hence together 50). In the 
legs there are two (i. e. 4 in both legs ; hence together 54). In 
the heel there is one (i. e. 2 in both heels ; hence together 56). 
In the knee there is one (i. e. 2 in both knees ; hence together 
58). In the thigh there is one (i.e. 2 in both thighs; hence 
together 60). In either of the lower limbs there are sixty (i, e. 
altogether 120). ' In the hips, sides, abdomen, breast, and back, 
there are one hundred and seventeen bones.' As thus : In the 
anus and pubes there are two ; in the hips, two ; in the sacrum, 
one ; hence in the pelvis there are together five. In the two sides 
there are seventy-two (i. e. together "77^ ; in the back there are 
thirty (i. e. together 107) ; two are contained in the collar-bones 

§§ 92, 93] THE SYSTEM OF VAGBHATA 223 

(i.e. together 109); in the breast there are eight (i.e. together 
117). Further, ' above in the ^Iroclhi, or head-holders,' that is, from 
the neck upwards, there are sixty-three bones. As thus : in the 
neck there are nine; in the windpipe, four (i.e. together 13); in the 
jaws, two (i. e. together 15) ; in the nose, three (i.e. together 18) ; 
in the palate, one (i. e. together 19) ; in either cheek, ear, and 
temple, one (I e. 6, or altogether 25) ; in the cranium, six (i. e. 
together 31). The teeth number thirty-two (i. e. altogether 63). 
By adding up all these items we obtain three hundred ; as thus, 
120+117 + 63 = 300. 

\ 92. The Osteological Summary in the 
Bhdva Pi'akdsa 


The statement of the osteological system of Susruta in the 
Bhdva Prakdm, extracted from the edition of Jivananda of 1875 
(pp. 40, 41), runs as follows : 
Salya-tantre 'sthi-khandanam sata-trayam^udahrtam I 

tany^evcfatra nigadyante, tesaih sthanani yani ca II 
Sa-vimsati-satam tv^asthnam sakhasu kathitam budhaih I 

paisvayoh sroni-phalake vaksah-prsth-odaresu ca II 
Janiyad^bhisag^etesu sataih saptadas-ottaram I 

grlvayam^urdhvagam vidyad<;asthnam sastirh tri-samyutam II 

For the translation, see § 36. 

C. The System op Vagbhata I 

J 93. The Osteological System of Ydghhata I 

1. The statement of the osteological system of Vagbhata I, 
extracted from the AHdiiga Samgraha (Bombay edition, vol. I, 
p. 224, 11. 3-13), runs as follows : 

Trini sasty-adhikany^asthi-satani I tesam catvaririisac^^chatam 
sakhasu, sa-virhsa-satamiJantaradhau, satam murdhani iti II Tatrc? 
aikaikasmin sakthini panca pada-nakhah I pratyekamciJangulyaih 
trlny^asthlni, tani pancadasa I panca pada-salakah I tat-pratiban- 
dhakam<;ekam I dve dve kurca-gulpha-jaiighasu I ekaikarii parsni- 
jan-urusu I sarvani ca nakh-asthy-adini sakthi-vadcsbahvos^^ca I 


caturvimsatih parsukah, tavanty^eva tat-sthalakany^^arbudani 
ca I trimsat^prsthe 1 astav^^urasi I ekaikarh bhage trike I nitam- 
bayosi^ca dve I tad-vad^faksak-ams-aihsaphalakesu I tatha ganda- 
karna-sankhesu jatru-talunos^ca I trayodasa grivayam I catvari 
kanthanadyam I dve hanu-bandhane I dvatrirhsad^^dantah I tad- 
vadi^alukhalani ca I trini nasayam I sat^sirasi II 

2. Immediately after the above-given Number-list follows the 
Class-list {ibidem, 11. 13-16), which runs as follows : 

Tani janu-kiirpara^-nitamb-amsa-ganda-talu-sankha-vanksana- 
madhya-sirassu kapala-samjnani I dasanasi^tu rucakah I ghrana- 
karna-grlv-aksikosesu tarunani I pani-pada-parsva-prsth-odar- 
orassu ^ valayani I sesani nalakani I iti nam-anugat-akrtini panca- 
vidhany<;asthini II 

3. For the translation of the Number-list, see § 37. The Class- 
list mav be translated as follows : 

Those bones which occur in the knees, elbows, hips, shoulders, 
cheeks, palate, temples, interiliac space (i. e. sacrum), and cranium 
are termed pan-shaped. The teeth are sharp bones. Tender 
bones occur in the nose, ears, neck, and eye-balls. The bones in 
the hands, feet, sides, back, abdomen, and breast are ornament- 
shaped. The remaining bones are reed-shaped. These are the 
five classes of bones which take their names from their shapes. 

D. Miscellaneous Texts 
J 94. Susruta and Vdgbhata on the Muscles 

1, The statement of Susruta on the number of the muscles, 
in Sdrlra St/nma, ch. V, cl. 33, referred to in §40, and edited 
from Bd» (fol. 21 b), Bd^ (fol. 20 b), lO^ (fol. 24 a)^, and EJ 
(p. 334), runs as follows : 

^ The Bombay edition omits kurpara, as well as udara and uras ; 
probably owing to defective manuscripts. The missing items are 
required by the context, as well as by the fact that the whole passage 
is obvioudy a copy from the statement (§ 88) in the Compendium of 

"^ Unfortunately MS. 10^ (fl. 18 6) is defective at this point, omitting 
the whole of the text from JE, p. 333, 1. 11, to p. 334, 1. 11. 


PaSca pe^I-satani bhavanti I tasarh catvaii satani sakhasu I 
kosthe satsastih I grivarii praty-urdhvaioa catustriihsat II 

There are five hundred muscles. Four hundred of them are in 
the (four) extremities. In the trunk there are sixty-six. Upwards 
from the neck there are thirty-four. 

2. The statement in the commentary of Dallana, extracted 
from Jivananda's edition, p. 578, runs as follows : 

' Panca pesl-satani ' ity-adi I mams-avayava-saihg-hatah paras- 
paraih vibhaktah pes! ity^ucyate I Gayitu * kosthe sastih I grivarh 

praty-urdhvam catvarimsad Viti pathati I I vrddha- 

Vao-bhato 'pi kosthe sastim^ev^^aha II 

With reference to ' the five hundred muscles ', the compact 
mass of flesh, when separated into its several strands, is called 
muscle. Gayi (or Gayadasa), however, reads: 'in the trunk 

there are sixty ; from the neck upwards there are forty.' 

Vagbhata the elder, also, says that there are sixty in the 

3. The statement of Vagbhata I, on the same subject, ex- 
tracted from the Bombay edition, vol. I, p. 225, 11. 20, 21, runs 
as follows : 

Panca pesl-satani I tasam catvari satani sakhasu I sastir^^antar- 
adhau I catvarimsad^urdhvam II 

There are five hundred muscles. Four hundred of them are in 
the (four) extremities. Sixty there are in the trunk ; forty there 
are upwards (of it). 

^95. Statement of Siisruta on Dissectiori 

The statement on dissection in the Compendium of Susiuta, 
referred to in § 45, is edited from the following* materials : 

1. Bd^ = Bodleian MS., No. 1092 (Hultzsch 349). 

2. Bd2 = „ MS., No. 739 (Wilson 290). 



3. 10^ = India Office MS., No. 72 b (Cat. No. 2645). 

4. 10^ = „ „ MS., No. 1842 (Cat. No. 2646). 

5. EG = Edition of Mudhusudana Gupta (Calcutta). 

6. EJ = „ of Jivananda (1889, pp. 335-6). 

7. EP = „ of Prabhuram Jivanaram (Bombay). 
It is translated in § 45, and runs as follows : 

Tvak-parj-antasya dehasya yo 'yam^ang-a-viniscayah I 

^ salya-jrianadi^rte ^ n^^aisa varnyate 'ngesu kesu-cit II 43 il 
Tasman^jnihsamsayam jnanam hartra salyasya vanchata ^ I 

sodliayitva* mrtam samyag^drastavyo 'nga-viniscayah ii 44 n 
Pratyaksato hi yad^drstam sastra-drstam ca yad^bhavet I 

^ samasatas<;tadi;ubbayam bhuyo jnana-vivardhanam ii 45 ii 
Tasmat ^ samasta-gatram <^ a- vis-opahatam <^ ^ a-dlrgha- vy ad h i-pldi- 
tam'^i^a-varsa-satikam niskrst-antra^-pmisam punasam^a-vahan- 
tyamiJapagayam nibaddham panjara-stham ^ munja-vaikala-kusa- 
san-adlnam^anyatamena avestit-angam^^i^a-prakase dese ko- 
thayet I samyak-prakuthitam Ci^oddhrtya tato deham sapta- 
latiadiJasIra-bala-venu-valkala^^-kurcanam^Vanyatamena sanaih 
sanair^avaghrsya ^" tvag-adln^sarvan^eva vahy-abhyantar-anga- 
pratyanga-visesan^yath-oktan laksayec^caksusa il 

§ 96. Susruta on Homology 

1. The statement of Susruta on homology in Sdrira Sthdna, 
ch. VI, cl. 29, referred to in § 28, and edited from Bd^ (fol. 26 a), 
Bd2 (fol. 25 a), IQi (fol. 22 b), 10^ (fol. 30 a), and EJ (p. 341), 
runs as follows : 

^ 10^ (fl. 19 h) om. verses 436, 44a, h. 

" 102 (fl_ 25 h) jnan-oddhrte. 

' Bd^, 10^ jnanam^icchata salya-jivina. 

* Bd^ 10^ dliavayitva. 

° 10^ samasena dvayam tat^tu tayori?jnana-vivardhanam ; lO'' 
samagatam dvayam caksu bhuyo-jnana-vivardhanam. 

® 10^ adlrgham^avyadhikam, om. avarsusatikam. 

' 10^ inserts ahlnam after piditam. 

^ So Bd^, 10%' but EJ, EG nihsrstantra ; 10^ nihkrsyambu, om. 
purlsam ; EP nihsrsta-mutra. 

' 10^ panjar-akhyam. '° Bd^ vestit-anga-pratyangam. 

^' Bd^ valkaja. '^ So 10^ ■^ but EG, EJ, EP kuclnam. 

" So 10^-'; but BD' gharsayan ; EG, EJ, EP avagharsayan. 


Visesatasc^tu yani sakthni g-ulpha-janu-vitapani, tani baliau 
manibandha-kurpara-kaksadharani I yatha vanksana-vrsanayor^^ 
antare vitapamc^evam vaksah-kaksayor^madhye kaksadharam II 

In particular, just as there are in the leg* (the three 
vital spots) ankle-bone, knee-cap, and ischio-pubic arch, so 
there are in the arm (the three) wrist-bone, elbow-pan, and 
collar-bone. Just as between the hip-bone and scrotum there 
is the ischio-pubic arch, so between the breast-bone and the 
arm-pit there is the clavicular arch. 

Susruta and Vdghhata on the Eyeball 

2. The statement of Susruta on the eyeball, in the Utfara 
Tantra, ch. I, verses 16 h, 17 a, referred to in § 30, and edited 
from 102 (foi^ 3 a, V. 19 g, 20 a) and EJ (p. 659), runs as 
follows : 

Tejojal-asritaih bahyam tesvi^anyat^^pisit-asritam I 

MedaSiJtrtlyam patalam^asritam tv^asthi c^aparam II 


The outer-one of the protective covers of the pupil consists of 
a luminous fluid, and the next-one, of flesh. The third is made 
of fat, and the farther-one, of bone. 

In the Summary of Vag-bhata I {^As^tdnga Sam gr aha, Sdrlra 
8thdna, ch. V, vol. I, p. 223, 1. 10) the statement is as follows : 

Bahyarii c^asritami;agny-ambhasl, dvitlyam mamsam, trtlyarii 
medasiJcaturtham^asthi II 


The outer-one consists of five and water ; the second, of flesh ; 
the third, of fat ; the fourth, of bone. 

Bhoja on the NalaJca hones 

3. The doctrine of Bhoja on the nala&a, or reed-like bones, 
as reported by Dallana (Jiv., p. 576) and Gayadasa (Cambridge 

* 10^ vrsana-vamksanayor. 
Q 2, 



MS., Add. 2491, fol. 49 a, 1. 3), and referred to on p. 80, runs 
as follows : 

Tad-uktam Bhoje I 
Hasta-pad-ang-uli-tale kurcesu mani-g-ulpliayoh I 
bahu-jangha-dvaye Ci^api janlyani^nalakani tu II 


In Bhoja's (treatise) this is said : ' The bones which are in the 
digits and flats of the hands and feet, in the clusters, in the 
wrists and ankles, and also in both the upper and lower limbs, — 
these one should know to be reed-like.' 

The manuscripts read wanibandhayoh ; the reading mani- 
gxdphayoh is a conjectural emendation, which is suggested by the 
fact that otherwise the statement of Bhoja would entirely ignore 
the ankle-bones [gulpha), which, as homologues of the wrist- 
bones {mani or manibandha), should by parity of reasoning be 
included in it. The dual of the MS. reading would have to be 
made to refer, not to the two wrists of the hands, but to the 
couple of organs consisting of the wrists and their homologues, 
the ankles, respectively — a very forced interpretation. In the 
term bdhu-jarighd-dvai/a, hcihu denotes the whole upper limb, and 
janghd, the whole lower limb, either of which consists of a couple 
{dvaya) of organs : arm, forearm, and thigh, leg. 

Dallana on the Aggregate Ten 

4. The statement of Dallana on the aggregate ten, referred to 
in § 31, and edited from D* (= Deccan College MS., No. 949, 
fol. 54 a), and Jivananda's edition, p. 576, runs as follows : 

Tala-kurca^-gulph-etyadi I kara-pada-tale^ panca salakah I 
tat-prabandhanami^ekam^asthi I dve dve kurca-gulphayor^iti 

dasa II 


As to the phrase ' sole-cluster-ankle ', &c., there are five long 
bones in the sole of the hand and of the foot, and there is a 
single bone which interlocks them. In each of the clusters 

^ D^ cm. kurca. '^ So D* ; Jiv. tale pada-tale. 


and ankles there are two bones. This makes altogether ten 

Susruta and Vdghhata on the Numher of Kurca 

5. The statement of Susruta on the number oi kurca, cluster, in 
the Sdrira St/zdua, eh. V, el. 10, referred to in § 31, and edited from 
Bdi (fol. 18 b), Bd2 (fol. 18 a), 10^ (fol. 17 a), 10^ (fol. 21 a), and 
E J (p. 330), runs as follows : 

Sati::kurcah I te hasta-pada-grlv^a-medhresu I ^hastayori^dvau, 
padayor dvau, giiva^-medhrayori^ekaikah II 


There are six clusters. They occur in the hands, feet, neck, 
and penis. In the two hands there are two; in the two feet 
there are two ; there is one each in the neck and penis. 

In the Summary of Vagbhata I {Sdrira Sthdna, eh. V, vol. I, 
p. 223, 1. 21) the statement is as follows : 
Sati^kurca, hasta-pada-grlva-medhresu II 

Susruta and Vdghhata on the Numher of Ankles, &c. 

6. The statement of Susruta on the number of ankle-bones, 
wrist-bones, and cluster-heads, in the Sdrira Sthdna, ch. VI, 
verse 19, referred to in § 31, and edited from Bd' (fol. 24 a), 
Bd^ (fol. 23 b), IQi (fol. 21 a), 10^ (fol. 28 a), and EJ (p. 338), 
runs as follows : 

Gulphau dvau, manibandhau dvau, dve dve kurca-siramsi ca I 
ruja-karani janlyad^astavi^etani buddhiman II 19 II 

There are two ankle-bones, two wrist-bones, and also two 
cluster-heads each (in the hands and feet). These eight an 
experienced (physician) should know to be exciters of disease. 

In the Summary of Vagbhata I (Sdrira Stiidna, ch. VIII, vol. I, 
p. 236, 1. 11) there is the following statement: 

Gulphau manibandhau stana-mule ca sadi;dvy-angulani 1 1 

' Bd', BD-, 10' cm. whole of third clause. ^ 10^ om. grlva. 



The two ankle-bones, the two wrist-bones, and the two areolae 
(lit., bases of the nipples) — these six are of the size of two 
nngula, or finger-breadths. 

{97. Susruta on the Position of Cluster and 


1. The statement of Susruta on the position of the cluster and 
of the cluster-head, in the Sar'ira Sthdna, ch. VI, cl. 28, referred 
to in § 49, and edited from Bd^ (fol. 25 h), Bd^ (fol. 24 b\ 10' 
(fol. 22 a), 102 (fol. 29 b), and EJ (p. 340), runs as follows: 

Padasy^angusth-angulyor^madhye ksipram^iti marma 1 ksip- 
rasy^oparistadi^ubhayatah kurcah ^ 1 gulpha-sandher^adho 'nubha- 
yatah ^ kurca-sirah ^ II 


Between the great toe and the toe next to it, there lies the 
vital spot, called ksipra. Upwards of this ksipra, both ways (i. e. 
externally and internally), there lies the kurca, or cluster. Below 
the ankle-joint, but not both ways, there lies the kurca-siras, or 
cluster-head (astragalus). 

Dallana, Gangddhar and Nanda Pandita 
on the Collar-hone 

2. The statement of Dallana on the collar-bone, in his Com- 
mentary on Susruta's Compendium, referred to in § 55, extracted 
from Jivananda's edition, pp. 663, 665, runs as follows: 

Aksakah ariisa-sandher^uparistad^bhavati II Aksakah amsa- 
sandher^fuparibhagah II 


The akmka, or collar-bone, is located above the shoulder-joint. 
It is the upper part of the shoulder-joint. 

Gangadhar's statement, in his commentary on the Compendium 
of Charaka, p. 187, 1. 14, is as follows : 

* Bd\ Bd'^, EJ kurco nama, and kurcasiro nama. 

2 So 10^ ; but 10- adhah ubbayatab, BdS Bd^ only ubhayatah. 


Dvav^aksakau kanthad^adho 'msakan dvau II 


The two ahaka, or collar-bones, are the shoulder-bones (which 
lie) below the throat. 

Nanda Pandita, in his commentary on the Institutes of 
Vishnu (Professor Jolly's ed., p. 197), has the following- statement : 
Aksah karna-netrayor^madhya-bhavah sankh-adhobhagah. 


J ha is the lower portion of the temple which lies between 
the eye and the ear. 

Susruta and Vdghhafa on the Position of the 
Scapula and Clavicle 

3. The statement of Susruta on the position of the shoulder- 
blade and collar-bone, in the Sdrlra Sthdna, ch. VI, cl. 31, referred 
to in § 55, and edited from Bd^ (fol. 26^), Bd^ (fol. 26 a), 10^ 
(fol. 23 a), 102 (foi^ 32 i), and E J (p. 342), runs as follows : 

Prsth-opari prsthavamsamjjubhayatas^trika-sarhbaddhe arhsa- 
phalake nama I bahumurdha-grlva-madhye 'rhsapltha-skandha-^ 
nibandhanavi^arhsau nama II 


In the upper part of the back, on both sides of the vertebral 
column, there lie the two so-called shoulder-blades, being- of 
triangular form. Between the head of the arms and the neck, 
there lie the two so-called collar-bones, connecting the shoulder- 
seat, or glenoid cavity, with the nape of the neck. 

The comment of Dallana on the preceding statement, referred 
to in § 56, and extracted from Jivananda's edition, p. 588, runs as 
follows : 

' Trika-sarhbaddhe ' iti I grivaya amsa-dvayasya ca yah sam- 
yogah sa trikah I tatra sambaddhe amsaphalake II 

Regarding the phrase tri ka-sathbaddha, trebly joined, the place 

» Ed' baudha. 


where the two collar-bones connect with the neck, that is the 
trika, and in that place the (two) shoulder-blades are joined. 

The same statement, as given in the Summary of Vag-bhata I, 
Sdnra SfAaua, ch. VII, vol. I, p. 234, 1. 9, referred to in § 56, 
runs as follows : 

Prsthavamsami^ubhayato buhumula-sambaddhe amsaphalake i 
giiva-bahusiro-madhye 'msapltha-skandba-bandhanav<;amsau li 


On both sides of the vertebral column there are the two 
shoulder-blades, joined on to the base of the arms. Between the 
neck and the head of the arms there lie the two collar-bones, 
connecting the shoulder-seat, or glenoid cavity, with the nape 
of the neck. 

Susruta on the Number of the Scapula and Clavicle 

4. The statements of Susruta on the number of the shoulder- 
blades and collar-bones, in the Sdnra Sthdna, ch. V, cl. 34 and ch. 
YI, cl. 3, 11, 18, referred to in §§ 55 and 56, and edited from Bd^ 
(fols. 21 a, 23 a, 23 b, 24 a), Bd^ (fols. 203, 22 a, 22 b, 23 b), 10^ 
(fols. 18 h, 21 a\ 102 (f^jg^ 34 ^^ 26 b, 27 a, 28 a), and EJ 
(pp. 334, 336-8), runs as follows : 

(1) Aksak-amsau^ prati samantati^sapta II 34 II 

(2) ^Astavi^asthi-marmani II 3 II katlka-taruna-nitamb-amsa- 
phalaka-sankhasv^^asthi-marmani il 11 II 

(3) Ams-aiiisaphalak-apanga-mla-manye^phanau^ tatha II 18 11 


(1) All round about the collar-bones and shoulder-blades there 
are seven (muscles). 

(2) There are eight vital spots in the bones. These are, two 
each in the kat'ika-taruna^ the hips, the shoulder-blades, and the 
temples ^ 

^ Eead aksak-amsajau. ^ Bd^ cm. this clause. 

=> Kd', Bd«, EJ nlle manye. ' 10^ phane. 

' The places referred to appear to be the attachment areas of the 


(3) There are two (vital spots) each in the collar-bones, 
shoulder-blades, ajMnga^ nlla, maiii/a, and phana. 

Suh'uta on Amsahuta 

5. The statement of Susnita on amsakuta, in the Sdnra 
StJidna, eh. VI, cl. 30, referred to in § 55, and edited from Bd^ 
(fol. 26 b), Bd2 (fol. 26 h), IQi (fol. 23 a), 10^ (fol. 31 a), and EJ 
(p. 341), runs as follows : 

Amsakutayori^adhastati^parsv-oparibhagayor^apalapau nama^ H 

Below the two summits of the shoulder, in the upper part of 
the two sides (of the thoracic cag-e) there are two (vital spots) 
called Apaldpa. 

SuSruta on Amsapitha 

6. The statement of Susruta on amsapitha, in the Sdnra 
Sthdna, ch. V, cl. 23, referred to in § 55, and edited from Bd^ 
(fol. 20 h), Bd2 (fol. 19 b), 10^ (fol. 18 a), 10^ (fol. 23 a), and 
EJ (p. 332), runs as follows : 

Amsapitha-guda-bhag-a^-nitambesu samudgah II 


There are (two) casket-shaped (joints) : (one is) the shoulder- 
seat (g-lenoid cavity), (the other is formed by) the anal, pubic, 
and hip-bones (acetabulum). 

RCijanighantu and Amarakosa on Bhaga 

7. The definition of b//ai/a in the Hdjanighantu, referred to 
in p. 153, footnote 1, occurs in the Supplement (parisisfa) of 
that work, chap, xviii, verses 43 and 44 (Anandusrama ed., p. 399), 
runs as follows : 

rotator muscles of the thighs about the ischio-publc arch, of their 
flexor muscles in the ilium, of the rotator muscles of the arms, and of 
the temporal muscles of mastication. 

^ 10^'^ apfilapau, om. nama. 

^ Bd"^ pada-guda-bhaga ; Bd^ pada-guda and 10^ guda-pada, om, 


Gucla-miiskadvayor<5madhye purhsam<^angarii bhagah smrtah 

II 43 II 

I yonir^^bhago varangam syadi;upastharh smara-man- 

diram II 44 II 

[Verse 43.] The member of the male between the anus and 
the bipartite scrotum is known as hhaga. 

[Verse 44.] The vulva is (called) hhaga, or vardnga (lit. choice 
part), or npastha (underlying), or sniara-mandira (lit. Cupid's 

In the edition, published by Ashu Bodha and Nitya Bodha 
Bliattaeharjya (Calcutta, 1899), verse 43 (there numbered 72, 
p. 389) runs as follows : 

Guda-muskadvayor^madhye yo bhagah sa bhagah smrtah H 72 II 

That is, That part which lies between the anus and the 
bipartite scrotum is known as hhaga. 

In this reading there is no explicit mention of the male, but, 
of course, the reference to it is implied in the mention of the 
scrotum. The reading of the Anandasrama edition is supported 
by the Bodleian MS., No. 765 (Wilson, 297), fl. 106 a, 1. 2. 

The teaching of the Amarakosa on the subject occurs in its 
Section II, Chapter vi, verse 76 (in Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar's 
5th ed., p. 150, Bombay, 1896), and runs as follows : 

Bhagam yonir^dvayoh, sisno medhro mehana-sephasi II 


The vulva (yoni) has also the other name hhaga, and the penis 
(Cephas) or urinary organ (mehafia) is (also called) m'ethra (medhra), 
and the ' piercer ' {fmia). 

The manner in which the two words are contrasted is 

J 98. Susruta and Vdghhata on Jatru and Grivd 

1. The statements of Susruta on Jairu, windpipe, and grlvd, 
neck, in the Sdrira Sihdna, ch. VI, cl. 4, 32, referred to in § 62 



(p. 160), and edited from lO^ (fols. 20 a, 23 b, 24(z), IO2 (fols. 26 b, 
33 a, 34 3), and EJ (pp. 336, 342, 343), are as follows : 

(1) Grlvayam ^ praty-urdhvam saptatririisat II 4 II 

(2) Ata urdhvam^i^urdhvajatru-g-atany^anuvyakhyasyamah ^ I 
tatra kantbanadlmi^ubhayatasi^catasro dhamanyah .... I grl- 

vayam^ubhayatasi^catasrali sirali evam^etani saptatriih- 

sad^urdhvajatru-gatani marmani vyakhyatani II 32 II 


(1) In the neck and upwards there are thirty-seven (vital 

(2) Now, further on, we shall describe in detail (the vital 
spots) occurring" from the neck upwards. In that region, in 
the windpipe there are four clhamam^ &c., and in the cervical 
column there are four blood-vessels, &c Thus, these thirty- 
seven vital spots which occur from the neck upwards have been 

In the Compendium of Vagbhata II {A.^tch'tga Hrdaya, Sdnra 
iSfM?ia, ch. IV, verse 2 a, in 1st ed., vol. I, p. 592) the first-quoted 
statement runs as follows : 

Prsthe caturdas^ordhvaih tu jatros^trimsac^ca sapta ca II 

In the back there are fourteen (vital spots) ; but from the 
neck upwards there are thirty and seven. 

Suhnita, Vdghhata, and Mddhava on the Valmlka 


2. The statement of Susruta on the Valmlka disease, in the 
Nifhma Sthdna, ch. XIII, verses 7, 8, referred to in § 62 (p. 161), 
and edited from 10^ (fol. 48 b) and EJ (p. 286), runs as follows : 

Pani-pada-tale sandhau grlvayam^urdhva-jatruni I 

granthiri^valmikavadifyasi^ca sanaih samupaclyate II 7 II 

* EJ grivam. "^ 10* era, urdhvam. 

^ EJ vyakhyasyiimah. 


Toda-kleda-parlduha-kandumadbhiri^vranairiJvrtah I 

vyadhir^Valmika ity^^esa kapha-pitt-anil-odbhavah II 8 II 


An anthill-like swelling which gradually grows up in the palm 
of the hand, in the sole of the foot, in a joint, in the neck, or 
anywhere above the windpipe, and which turns into pricking, 
running, burning, and itching ulcers — such a disease is called 
Valmlka, and is caused by disorders in the phlegm, bile, and 
air humours. 

The same statement in the Summary of Vagbhata I, Utlara 
StJidna, eh. XXXVII, vol. II, p. 316, 1. 2, runs as follows : 
Pani-pada-tale sandhau jatrurdhvarii c^opaclyate I 

valmlkavac^chhanair ^ granthis ^ tad- vad <^ bahv-anubhir i^ mu- 
khaih II 
Rug^daha-kandu-kled-adhyairifValmlko 'sau samasta-jah H 

An anthill-like swelling with numerous minute apertures, 
which gradually grows up in the palm of the hand, in the sole 
of the foot, in a joint, or anywhere above the neck, and is full 
of burning and itching discharges — such a disease is called 
Fahnika, and is caused by all (the three) humours. 

The same statement in the Pathology of Madhava (Niddna, 
eh. LV, cl. 6, ed. Jiv., 1901, p. 276) runs as follows : 

Griv-amsa-kaksa-kara-pada-dese sandhau gale va tribhir<;eva 

dosaih I 
Granthih sa valmika-vad^akriyanam jatah kramen^^aiva gatah 

pravrddhim II 
Mukhair^anekaih sruti-toda-vadbhircJvisarpa-vat^sarpati c^on- 

nat-agraih I 
Valmlkam^ahur^bhisajo vikararh nispratyamkam cira-jam 

visesat II 6 II 

An anthill-like swelling, w^hich has arisen from all the three 
humours (when disordered) in the neck, shoulder, armpit, and 
flat of the hand or foot, or in a joint, or in the throat, and 


which has gradually grown to a size, with numerous raised 
orifices running and pricking, and which spreads like erysipelas 
— such a disease the physicians call Valmika^ especially if it has 
been neglected and is of long standing. 

Susruta on Urdhvajatru and Jatrurdhva 

3. The use hj Susruta of the terms urdhvajatru ^xA jatrurdhva, 
referred to in § 62 (p. 162), is further illustrated by the following 
two passages. The first occurs in 8iXtra Sthdna, ch. I, cl. 5, and, 
extracted from E J (p. 2), runs as follows : 

Salakyam nama iirdhvajatru-gatanam roganam sravana-na- 
yana - vadana - ghran -adi - samsritanam vyadhlnam ^ upasaman- 
artbam II 


(The branch of medical science) called Minor Surgery is con- 
cerned with the cure of the diseases seated in the body from the 
neck upwards, that is, of the maladies affecting the ears, eyes, 
mouth, nose, and other organs. 

Chakrapanidatta's comment on this passage in the Bhdnumati 
(Calcutta edition, p. 20) runs as follows : 

(1) Jatru griva-miilam I jatruna iirdhvam^urdhvajatru II 

The comment of Dallana, in Jivananda's edition, p. 7, is : 

(2) Jatru griva-mulam I anye vakso-'msa-sandhim^ahuh II 


(1) The term jatru signifies the base of the neck ; hence the 
term urdhvajatru denotes the body from the neck upwards. 

(2) The term jatru signifies the base of the neck. Others 
explain it as the joint of breast-bone and collar-bone. 

The second passage occurs in ihe,Niddna Sthdna, ch. T, verse 14, 
and, edited from 10^ (fol. 3 a, 1.3) and EJ (p. 244), runs as 
follows : 

Tena bhasita-glt-adi-viseso 'bhipravartate I 

urdhvajatru-gatan^rogaui^karoti ca visesatah II 14 II 



By means of it (i. e. the uddna or uprising air humour) speak- 
ing, singing, and other functions (such as breathing) are per- 
formed ; and in particular (when disordered) it causes the diseases 
which are seated in the body from the neck upwards. 

The comment of Dallana on the term urdhvajatru in this 

passage ( Jiv. ed., p. 459) runs as follows : 

' tjrdhvajatru-gatan ' iti nayana-vadana-ghrana-sravana-sirah- 

samsrayan II 


The phrase ' seated in the urdhvajatru ' refers to those diseases 
which have their seat in the eyes, mouth, nose, ears, and the 

The similar comment of Arunadatta, also referred to in § 62, 
occurs in the A-^fdnf/a llrdaya, Sutra Sthd7ia, ch. I, verse 1 (1st ed., 
vol. I, p. 368), and runs as follows : 

Urdhvajatru-vikaresu siro-rog-adisu. 

The phrase * in diseases of the urdhvajatru ' means ' in diseases 
which affect the cranium and other parts of the head '. 

J 99. The Satajoatha Brdhmana on the Total 
Numhe7' of Bones 

1. The statement in the Satapatha brdhmana, X, 5, 4, 12 
(Weber's ed., p. 801), on the total number of the bones of the 
human body, referred to in § 42, cl. 1, runs as follows : 

Atma ha tv^ev^aiso 'gnis^citah I tasy^asthlny^eva parisritas^^ 
tah sastis^ca trini ca satani bhavanti, sastis^ca ha vai trini ca 
satani purusasy^asthini ; majjano yajusmatya istakas^tah sastis^ 
c^aiva trini ca satani bhavanti, sastisi^ca ha vai trini ca satani 
purusasya majjano 'tha II 12 II 

A similar statement occurs, ibidem, XII, 3, 2, 3 and 4 (Weber's 
ed., p. 912), and is as follows : 

Trini ca vai satani sastisi^ca saihvatsarasya ratrayas,^trlni ca 
satani sastisi^ca purusasy;;asthmy,^atra tat-samam I trini ca 


satani sastis^ca samvatsarasji^ahani, trini ca satani sastis^ca 
purusasya majjano 'tra tat-samam II 3 II sapta ca vai satani vim- 
satis^ca saihvatsarasyjjaho-ratrani, sapta ca satani vimsatis^ca 
puriisasy^asthlni ca majjanas,^c^atra tat-samam II 4 II 

For a translation of the above two passages, see § 42, cl. 2. 

SusTuta on Marroiv 

2. The statement of Susruta on marrow, in Sutra Stlidna, XIV, 
verse 6 (Jiv., p. 48), refen-ed to in § 42, cl. 6, runs as follows : 
Rasadi^raktam , tato mariisam, mamsan^medah prajayate I 
medaso 'sthi, tato majja, majnah sukrasya sambhavah II 6 II 


From chyle originates blood ; from the latter, flesh (muscle) ; 
from flesh, fat ; from fat, bone ; from the latter, marrow : from 
man'ow is the origin of semen. 

There is nothing like this statement in that portion of 
Charaka's text-book, which was composed by Charaka himself. 
In the complement of that work made by Dridhabala, however 
there occurs, in the Ckikitsita Sthdna, ch. XIX, verse 14 (Jiv. ed., 
1896, p. 656), a similar statement, which is based on Vagbhata I's 
account of the subject in \\\^A^tdhga Samgraha,Sdrlra Sthdna^ch.Yl 
(ed., vol. I, p. 231, 1. 12), and which is quoted by Arunadatta, as 
Dridhabala's statement, in his commentary on Vagbhata II's 
Astdnga Hrdaya, Sdrira Sthdjia, ch. Ill, verses 62 a and 63 b 
(1st ed., vol. I, p. 569). This statement runs as follows : 

Rasadc?raktam, tato mamsam, mamsan^medas, tato 'sthi ca I 
asthno majja, tatah sukrarh, sukrad^garbhah prajayate II 14 II 

From chyle originates blood ; from the latter, flesh ; from 
flesh, fat ; and from the latter, bone : from bone, marrow ; from 
the latter, semen ; from semen, the foetus. 

The further statement of Susruta, in Sdrira Sthdna, ch. IV, 
cl. 9 and 10 (Jiv. p. 319), also referred to in § 42, cl. 6, and edited 
from Bdi (fol. 11 a), Bd^ (fol. 11 a), 10^ (fol. 11 b), 102 (fol. 14 a), 
runs as follows : 


Tritlya medodhara nama ; medo hi sarva-bhutanam^udara- 
stham, anv-asthisu ca mahatsu ca majja bhavati II 9 II 

Sthul-asthisu visesena majja tv^abhyantar-asthitah I 

tath^etaresu sarvesu sa-raktarii meda ucyate II 
Suddha-niamsasya yah snehah sa vasa pariklrtita I 
^ath^etaresu sarvesu sneho medo vibhavita II 10 II 


The third stratum [kald) is called the fat-bearing* ; fat exists 
in the abdomen of all creatures ; it also occurs in the small and 
larg-e bones as marrow. In the large bones particularly, in the 
cavity of which it is found, it is called marrow : in all other 
bones it is called bloody fat. The grease which attaches to 
clean flesh (in the abdomen) is known as suet : in all other cases 
the fat is denoted simply grease. 

The Satapatha Brdhmana on the Number of Bones 
in the Head and Trunk 

3. The statement in the Satapatha Brdhmana, XII, 2, 4, 9-14 
(Weber's ed., p. 910), on the number of bones, or portions, 
of the head and trunk, referred to in § 42, cl. 3, and § 62, cl. 6, 
runs as follows : 

^ira ev^asya trivrt I tasmat^tat^tri-vidham bhavati, tvag^asthi 
mastiskab II 9 II grlvah pancadasah I caturdasa va etasam karuka- 
rani, viryam pancadasam, tasmadi^etabhir^anvlbhih satlbhir^? 
gurum bharam harati, tasmad^fgrivah pancadasah II 10 II urah 
saptadasab I astav^anye jatravo 'stavi^anya, urah saptadasam, tas- 
madi^urah saptadasah II 11 H udaram^ekavimsah l vimsatir^va 
antari?udare kuntapany^udaram^ekavimsam, tasmad^udarami^eka- 
virhsah 11 12 II parsve trinavah I trayodascJanyah parsavascftrayodas^ 
any ah, parsve trinave, tasmat^^parsve trinavah II 13 II anukam 
trayastriiiisah I dvatrimsad^va etasya karukaranyi^anukaih tra- 
yastrimsaiii, tasmadi^aniikarh trayastrimsah II 14 II 

For the translation, see § 42, cl. 3. 

^ The last line is omitted in Bd\ Bd^, 10^ and Jivananda's edition ; 
but it occiu's in 10^ and has the support of Gayadasa's commentary, 
Cambridge MS., Add. 2491, fob 36 a. 


The Sataioatha Brdhmana on Costal Cartilages 

4. The statement in the Satapafha Brdhmana, VIII, 6, 2, 7. 10 
(Weber's ed., p. 682), onjafrtt, or the costal cartilages, referred to 
in §§ 42, cl. 4, 62, cl. 6, runs as follows : 

Uras^tristubhah I ta retahsicor<:^vela.y^opadadhati, prstaj'o vai 
retahsica, uro vai prati prstayah II 7 II parsavo brhatyah I kikasah 
kakubhah, so 'ntarena tristubhas^ca kakiibhas^ca brhatlr^upada- 
dhati, tasmadi^ima ubhayatra parsavo baddhah kikasasu ca 
jatrusu II 10 II 

For the translation, see § 42, cl. 4. 

Note : The osteological terms mentioned in Nos. 3 and 4 
have been much misunderstood in dictionaries and translations. 
Considered in the light of Indian anatomical doctrine it is not 
so difficult to interpret them correctly. Pfsti is a sjoionym of 
prstlia, and means back-bone or vertebra. Klkasa denotes the 
transverse processes of the thoracic vertebrae. Jatno is a costal 
cartilage. Karukara is another term for the transverse processes 
of the cei*vical and thoracic vertebrae. Kuntdj^a does not refer to 
any gland in the abdomen, but to the transverse processes of the 
lumbar vertebrae. Udara does not mean the abdomen simply, but 
the lower or abdominal portion of the vertebral column, while 
anuha refers to the upper or thoracic portion of that column. 
The whole vertebral column is divided into three parts : gnvd, 
cervical, anuka, thoracic, and udara, lumbar. This is practically 
the same as our modern division. Yuija, vital force, or strength, 
which is said to be the fifteenth neck-bone, obviously represents 
the median line of the cervical column, considered as forming 
a single bone, and imparting to the whole set of neck-bones its 
peculiar strength by which heavy loads are supported. The 
osteologieal principles implied in the use of these terms are 
explained in § 42, cl. 7 and 8, and in my article on ' Anatomical 
Terms' in the Journal of the Itoyal Asiatic Society for 1907, 
pp. 1-18. 



§ 100. The Atharva Veda on the Skeleton 

The hymn on the creation of man in the Atharva Veda, X, 
2, verses 1-8, referred to in § 2, cl. 4, and § 43, and extracted from 
the edition of Roth and Whitney, runs as follows : 

1. Kena parsnl abhrte purusasya, kena mamsarh sariibhrtam, 

kena gulphau l 
ken^aiigulih pesanih, kena khani, ken^jochlakhau madhyatah, 
kah pratistham II 

2. Kasraan^^nu gulphav^adharav^akrnvan<;ni;asthivantav^uttarau 

purusasya I 
jang-he nirrtya nyadadhuh kva svij, janunoh sandhi ka u tac^ 
ciketa li 

3. Catustayam j^ujyate samhit-antam, janubhyam^urdhvaih 

sithiram kabandham I 
sroni yad^iirii ka u tajVjajana yabhyam kusindham su-drdham 
babhuva II 

4. Kati devah katame ta asanya uro g-rivas^cikyuh purusasya i 
kati stanau vyadadhuh, kah kaphodau, kati skandhan, kati 

prstlri^acinvan li 

5. Ko asya bahu samabharad^;' viryam karavad Viti I 
amsau ko asya tad<;devah kusindhe adhyadadhau li 

6. Kah sapta khani vi tatarda sirsani, karnavi^imau nasike 

caksani mukham i 
yesarii purutra vijayasya mahmani catuspado dvipado yanti 

7. Hanvori^hi jihvamifadadhat, puruclm^-adha mahlmi^adhi 

sisraya vacam i 
sa a varlvarti bhuvanesv^antar^apo vasanah, ka u tac^ciketali 

8. Mastiskam^asya yatamo lalatam kakatikam prathamo yah 

kapalam \ 
citva cityam hanvoh purusasya divam ruroha, katamah sa 
devah II 

For the translation, see § 43, cl. 2; also my article in the 
Journal of the Boi/al Asiatic Society for 1907, pp. 10-12. 


The mimhers refer to the pages. Sanskrit terms are in italics, 
2)roper names in capitals. 


Abdomen, 77, 80, 90, 110, 240, 

241. ^eeudara. 
Acetabulum, 138, 233. 
Acromion process, ix, 134, 137. 

See amsa-kuta. 
AdhiSdkham, 222. 
Adhisthdna, 23,26-28,36,38,112, 

113, 118, 121, 124 ff. See 

AgniPubana, 30, 31, 41 ff., 214. 
Agnive^a, 1-4, 8, 9, 66. 
Aksa, 46, 53, 55, 90, 134, 202, 

204, 206, 213, 215, 231. See 

Aksaka, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 34, 36, 

38, 49, 55, 71, 74, 75, 87, 89, 

90, 91, 97, 112 ff., 118, 120, 

135ff., 138, 230, 231. Seeo^sa. 
Aksaka-samjna, 71, 86, 90. 
Aksa-tdlusaka, 54, 55, 199. 
Aksi, 27, 47, 50, 53, 55, 73, 202, 

204, 213, 215. 
Aksi-kosa, 76, 77, 87, 95, 112, 

119, "l20, 183. 
Alveolar process, 174 ff"., 178 ff., 

181., 29, 98, 153, 165 ff., 

Amsa, 23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 36, 37, 

38, 40, 47, 60, 62, 67, 68, 74, 

75, 76, 78, 86, 91, 97, 98, 

112 ff., 120, 133ff., 138, 166ff, 

199, 202, 206, 213, 217. 
Amsa-ja, 58, 75, 78, 79, 86, 87, 

112, 118, 137 ff. 
Amsaka, 34, 134, 138. 
Amsa-hUa, 78, 97, 121, 137, 140, 



Amsa-phalaka, 23, 25, 26, 30, 

33, 38, 48, 58, 62, 75, 76, 78, 

91,97, 112ff, 118,121, 135ff., 

138 ff, 167, 217. 
Amsa-pltha, 78, 136, 137, 140, 

Amsa-samudhhava, 46, 48, 49, 58, 

76, 138, 215. 
Anal bone, 50,61, 77, 94, 149, 

233. See guda, gud-dsthi, 

'Anatomy,' 61 ff., 67, 68, 216. 
Angidi, 23, 26, 27, 32, 38, 46, 

49, 53, 62, 71,87, 88,91, 112. 

120, 121. 122, 198, 201, 204, 

206, 213, 215, 217. 
Ankle, or ankle-bones, 25, 72, 77, 

80, 84, 93, 97, 110, 115, 116, 

210, 222, 227, 229, 230. See 

Ankle-joint, 126, 230. 
Anklet, 80, 131. 
Antarddhi, 22, 27, 35, 121. 
Anuka, 106, 109, 148, 241. 
Anus, 71, 93, 222, 234. 
Apaldpa, 136, 233. 
Apaeaeka, 46, 52 ff., 197, 207. 
Aratni, 23, 26, 27, 32, 38, 46, 

49, 51, 53, 56, 57,60, 62, 112, 
118, 121, 129 ff., 198, 202, 
206, 213, 215. See aratnikd. 

Amtnikd, 198, 204, 217. See 

A7-huda, 23, 26, 28, 36, 39, 47, 

50, 63, 9], 112, 144 ff., 199, 
202, 204, 207, 214, 216, 217. 

Areola, 230. 

Ann, 48, 51, 64, 77, 80, 84, 93, 
110,227,231,232. Sec hdhu. 
Armpit, 72, 202, 227, 236. 



Articulation, 36. 

Akunadatta, 15, 16, 17, 73, 163, 
238, 239. 

Asthi, 29, 78. 

Astlii-samgraha, 120, 121. 

Astlvat, 112, 132. 

Astragalus, 122, 125ff., 230. 

Atanka Daepana, 17. 

Atharva Yeda, 8, 9, 68, 109 ff., 
123, 124, 130, 131, 138, 156, 
177, 181, 242. 

Atlas, 157. 

Ateeya, vi, 1-4, 7, 8, 19, 20, 
24, 37, 39, 40, 61, 64, 66, 70, 
72, 79, 85, 102, 107, 113, 115, 
123, 129, 131, 183, 185ff. 

Auditory ossicles, 184. 

Ayurveda Dipika, 16. 


Back, or back-bone, 29, 50, 51, 
70,77,80,84,90,93,104, 110, 
213, 214, 222, 231. See 
prstha, 2^rs<A«^a<-as<A/, 2^T?f^'^' 
vai'nki, irrsth-cisthi, pfsti. 

Baku, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34, 
38, 47, 56, 57, 60, 63, 112, 
113, 118, 120, 133, 198, 202, 
204, 206, 213, 217, 228. See 

Udhu-nalaka, 112, 118, 133. See 

Base (of long bones), 31, 51, 84, 
97, 124ff., 208. iiee adhisthana, 
pratibandhaka, sthdna. 

Bhaga. or bhag-dsthi, 23, 26, 27, 
28, 29, 36, 38, 47, 49, 53, 63, 
74, 91, 112, 118, 120, 138, 
152 ff., 199, 207, 213, 215, 
217, 233, 234. 

Bhagavat Pueana, 165. 

Bhandarkae, Professoi', 41. 

Bhanumati, commentary, 237. 

Bharadvaja, 7, 9. 

Bharhut Stupa, 80. 

Bhaskara Bhatta, 17, 70. 

Bhava Praka^a', 18, 70, 74, 90, 
140, 223. 

Bheda, 1, 4, 21, 24, 37 ff., 48, 
58', 61, 64, 65, 66, 70, 79, 
124, 128 ff., 138, 177, 179 ff., 
182, 185, 192. 

Bhoja, 80, lOOff., 227. 

Bhuja-siras, 166. 

Blood, 35, 239. 

Bone, 35, 78, 227, 239. 

Bones, central facial, 112, 177 ff. 

Bones, hollow. See nalaka. 

Bones, ornament-like, 75, 76. 

Bones, pan-shaped. See kapdla, 
sirah-kapdla, slrsa-kapdla. 

Bones," reed-like, 77, 228. See 

Bones, sharp, 76. 

Bones, tender, 78, 143. See 
tar una. 

Bones, triangular, 231. See trika. 

Bower Manuscript, iii, 109. 

Bracelet, 80. 

Brain, 105, 109, 111. 

Breast-bones, 30, 31, 48, 51, 58, 
64, 70, 72, 77, 84, 86, 90, 93, 
104, 108, 110, 144, 210, 223, 
227, 237. See uras, vaksas. 

Bronchi, 119, 159. 

Brows, 30, 37, 40, 48, 51, 59, 
111, 199, 210. See laldta, 
laldt-dksi-ganda . 


Caracoid process, ix. 
Cakaka Tatpaeya Tika, 16. 
Carpus, or carpal bones, v, vi, 

ix, 28, 54, 80, 81, 116, 118, 

122, 124 ff. See kurca, adhi- 

sthdna, sthdna. 
Cartilage, 73, 115; cervical, 

159 ff.; costal, ix, 80, 105, 

106, 142 flf., 241; nasal, x, 

Celsus, V. 

Central facial bone, 112, 177 ff. 
Chakeapanidatta, 1-3, 12, 16, 

17, 20, 24, 34 ff., 48, 63, 100, 



123, 134, 153, 162 ff., 183, 

190, 237. 
Chandeata, 90, lOOfF. 
'Chapter on Anatomy,' 42, 43, 

Charaka, iii, V, 1-4, 10, 19 fF., 

43, 48, 58, 61, 63 ff., 79, 81, 

92, 96, 98 ff., 107, 113, 185ff. 
Cheeks, 30, 37, 48, 51, 58, 59, 

76, 17, 93, 104, 210, 223. 

See ganda, ganda-kilta, kajwla. 
Chin, 210. See hanu, hanv-asthi. 
Choroid, 78. 

Chronology of Medicine, 7. 
Chyle, 35, 239. 


Ciliary body, 79. 

Class-list of bones, 77 ff., 90. 

Clavicle, ix. See collar-bone. 

Clavicular arch, 72, 155. 

Cluster (of bones), 77, 80, 84, 97, 
222, 228. See kfirca. 

Cluster-head, 229. See kilrca- 

Coccyx, ix, 75. See anal bone. 

Collar-bone, 50 ff., 58, 59, 72, 
77 ff., 80, 84, 86, 93,104, 110, 
155, 159, 210, 222, 227, 230, 
237. See aksa, aksaka, amsa. 

Cordier, Dr. P.,' 3, 16, 17, 20, 
35, 38, 70. 

Cranium, or cranial bones, 93, 
111, 119, 210, 223, 238. See 
kapdla, iiras, iirah-kapcda. 

Cubuka, 39, 40. 


Dallana, 16, 69, 80, 8 Iff., 101 ff., 
141, 162 ff., 217,225, 228,230, 
231, 237, 238. 

Danta, 22, 26, 27, 38, 46, 62, 
71, 87, 89, 92, 112, 119, 120, 
182 ff., 198, 206, 212, 217. 
See daSana. 

Dant-olukhala, 35, 112, 174 ff., 
182 ff. 

Daiana, 49, 210, 215. See 

Date, of Vagbhata, vi, 98 ff. ; of 

Yajnavalkya, 106. 
Debendranath Sen, 21, 141, 

DTiamanl, 235. 
Dhanvantari, 7. 
Dharanidhar Ray, 21. 
Dharmottara Pur an a, 41, 42, 

Digits, vi, 210, 212, 222, 228. 

See anguli, phalanges. 
Dissection, 116, 225. 


Dridhabala, 1-3, 5, 11-16, 160, 

Brsti, 78. 


Ears, X, 93, 110, 135, 200, 202, 

204, 207, 213, 214, 223, 231, 

237. See karna. 
Eggeling, Professor, 105, 106. 
Elbow, or elbow-pan, 227. See 

kaimlikd, kajiola, kurpara. 
Erasistratos, iv. 
Ethmoid bone, 119, 168 ff. 
Eyeball, 17, 78 ff., 86, 97, 184, 

227. See aksi-kosa. 
Eyebrows {hku), 200, 202, 204, 

207, 214. 
Eye-diseases, 12, 13. 
Eyelashes and eyelids, 13, 79. 
Eyes, 30, 48, 51, 55, 59, 64, 84, 

93, 110, 135, 199, 207, 210, 

231, 237. See aksi, netra. 


Face, 73. 

Facet of ribs, 145, 147, 150. 

Facial bone, 48, 58, 63, 64, 72, 

84, 111, 112, 177ff. 
Fat, 78, 227, 239, 240, 
Femur, ix, 118. 
Fibula, ix, 118, 121, 130. 
Fingers, 35 ff., 183, 198. 



Flat of hand, or foot, 228, 236. 

See tala. 
Flesh, 78, 225, 227, 239, 240. 
Foot, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 46, 

54, 70, 77, 80, 81, 122, 229. 
Forearm, 77, 80, 84, 93, 210. 

See aratni, aratnikd. 
Forehead, 207, 213. 
Frontal bone, x, 102, 119, 168 £f., 



Galen, vi. 

Ganda, 27, 47, 50, 52, 53, 55, 
71, 87, 89, 92, 119, 177 ff., 
199, 202, 204, 207, 213, 216. 

Ganda-kilta, 23, 26, 36, 39, 63, 
112, 119, 120, 177 ff., 180, 

Gangadhar, vi, 19 ff., 27 ff., 44, 
45, 49 ff., 58, 59, 68, 88 ff., 
134, 138, 187, 195,220, 230. 

Gayadasa, 16, 69, 80, 81, 100 ff., 
163, 225, 227. 

Geeeish, Textbook of Anatomy, 
137, 150, 157. 

Ghana, 27, 47, 50, 61, 199, 202, 
204, 207, 210, 214, 216. 

Ghan-dsthikd, 61, 65. 

Ghrdna, 179. 

Gibbon, 150. 

Glenoid cavity, 141, 231, 232. 
See amsa-pltha. 

Great toe, 36, 230. 

Greek osteology, iii ff. 

Grlvd, 23, 24,' 26, 27, 31, 37, 38, 
47, 50, 53, 63, 71, 77, 87, 89, 
92, 93, 94, 95, 112, 119, 121, 
149 ff., 156 ff., 159 ff., 199,202, 
207, 213, 215, 217, 234, 241. 

Guda, or guddsthi, 27, 74, 118, 
120, 138, 152 ff. 

Guhya, 202. 

Gulpha, 23, 26, 27, 32, 38, 46, 
49, 53, 62, 71, 81 ff., 87, 88, 
91,95, 99, 103, 112, 118, 121, 
122, 124, 126, 130 ff., 198, 
201, 206,213,215, 217, 228. 


Hands, 23, 27, 28, 31, 38, 39, 

46, 54, 77, 80, 81, 122, 229. 
Ilanu, 47, 50, 53, 63, 71, 87, 89, 

95, 112, 119, 120, 129, 173 ff., 

199, 202, 204, 207, 213, 215, 

Hanu-handhana, 92, 95, 176. 
Ilanu-citya, 112, 173 ff., 177. 
Uanu-kuta, 39, 177 ff., 180. 
Hanu-mula, 47, 50, 119, 217. 
Hanu-mula-handhana, 23, 26, 27, 

39, 63, 95, 112, 120, 173 ff. 
Hanv-asthi, 23, 26, 27, 39, 40, 

112, 173ff. 
Hara Peasada Shastei, 41. 
Head, 24, 27, 35, 86, 104, 110, 

156 ff., 223, 240. 
Heel, 50, 51, 73, 77, 80, 83 ff., 

86, 93, 97,110,210, 222. See 

Heeophilos, iv. 
Hip-joint, 138. 

HiPPOKEATES, iv ff. 

Hips, hip-blades, hip-bones, 36, 
58, 71, 72, 76,77,90, 93,110, 
210, 222, 227, 232, 233. See 
nitamba, ironi, sroni-phalaka. 

Homology, 32, 72, 102, 115, 151, 
170, 226. 

Humerus, ix, 118, 141. 

Hymn on Creation, 8, 242. 

Hyoid bone, 119. 


Ilium, ix, 153. See nitamba, 

Institutes of Vishnu, 40 ff., 59 ff., 

135, 146, 165, 209. 
Instruments, surgical, 5. 
Interiliac space, 76, 224. 
Interlocker, see jyatibandhaka. 
Ischio-pubic arch, 227. See 

Ischium, ix, 153 ff. See nitamba, 

Itsing, 10. 



Jaijjata, 163. 

Jangha, 23, 26, 27, 32, 38, 46, 
49, 53, 57, 62, 71, 87, 88, 91, 
112, 118, 121, 129 ff., 199, 
202, 213, 215, 217, 228. 

Jdnu, 23, 26, 27, 32, 36, 38, 46, 
47, 49, 53, 63, 68, 71, 87, 88, 

91, 112, 118, 120, 131 ff., 199, 
204, 206, 213, 215, 217. 

Jdnuha, 36, 131. 

Jdnu-Jcajpalikd, 23, 25, 37, 38, 63. 

Jatru, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 
37, 38, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55,. 59, 
63, 71, 73, 77, 92, 93, 98, 
105, 106, 112, 119, 157 ff., 
199, 202, 207, 213, 215, 217, 
234, 237, 238, 241. 

Jatru-mula, 161, 162, 167. 

Jatrurdhva, 160 ff., 237. 

Jaw-bone, lower, see hanu-mula- 

Jaws, jaw-bones, 24, 73, 77, 80, 
93, 104, 110, 111, 223. See 

JiVAKA, 8. 

JivANANDA, 19 ff., 34, 37, 68, 69, 
70, 102. 

Joint, 36, 236 ; casket-shaped, 
234. See ankle-joint, knee- 
joint, shoulder-joint. 

Jolly, Professor J., 16, 41, 45, 
46,60, 117. 


KaJcdtihd, 112, 117 ff., 181. 

Kaksadhara, 155. 

Kdkuda, 55. 

Kald, 240. 

Kanishka, 9. 

Kantha, 93, 94. 

Kantha-nddi, 71, 73, 77, 87, 89, 

92, 93, 95, 112, 119, 157 ff, 
Kapdla, 26, 52, 58, 75, 76, 78, 

112, 132, 172ff., 181, 200, 
204, 207, 214, 216, 217. 
Kapdlikd, 23, 25, 26, 38, 52, 63, 

65, 73, 112, 118, 127, 130, 

131 ff., 217. 
Kaphoda, 112, 113, 138. 
Kapilabala, 2. 
Kapola, 26, 46, 52, 53, 58, 64, 

73, 132, 199, 202, 206, 213, 

Kama, 71, 73, 87, 89, 92, 112, 

119, 121, 184. 
Karukara, 105, 106, 148, 241. 
Kashmir Recension, 3, 14. 
Ka^iraja, 7. 
Kaf/ika-taruna, 232. 
Kaulaka, 63, 217. 
Klkasa, 90, 106, 148, 222, 241. 
Kllaka, 134. 
Kitta, 35. 
Knee, knee-cap, 57, 72, 76, 77, 

84, 93, 110, 210, 222, 227. 

See jdnu, jdnuka, jdnu- 

Knee-joint, 110. 
Kostha, 36. 
Ksijyra, 125, 230. 
Ktesias, iii, iv. 
Kuntdim, 106, 149, 241. 
Kurca, 27, 28, 32, 33, 49, 52, 71, 

73, 81 ff., 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 

95, 99, 103, 112, 113, 118, 

121, 122, 124 ff., 131, 229, 

Kurca-Siras, 120, 122, 126, 129, 

Kurpara, 27, 28, 32, 49, 52, 58, 

73, 118, 121, 131 ff. 


Labyrinth, 184. 
Lachrymal bone, 119, 177. 
Lalata, 23, 26, 27, 36, 39, 53, 

63, 112, 119, 120, 177ff., 202, 

204, 213, 215, 217. 
Laldt-dksi-ganda, 47, 50, 55, 56, 

Laparotomy, 5. 
Larynx, 159. 
Leg, ix, 72, 77, 80, 84, 110, 



206, 210, 222, 227. See 

Lens, of the eye, 78. 
Luminous fluid, 78, 227. 


Macdonell, Professor, 41. 
Madhava, 2, 11-16, 17, 161 ff., 

Madhukosa, 3, 14, 17, 161. 
Madhusudana Gupta, 68. 
Majjan, 107. 
Mala, 35, 183. 
Malar bone, malar prominence, x, 

169, 174. See garida and 

Malleoli, ix. See ankle-bones, 

Manihandha, 82, 95, 118, 124, 

130 ff., 228. 
Manika, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 37, 

38, 39, 48, 49, 56,63,67, 112, 

118, 121, 122, 130 ff., 217. 
Marman, 72, 95, 125, 136, 

Marrow, 105, 107, 239, 240. 
Maxillaries, x, 95, 119, 129, 

169, 173£f., 178 ff. See A«m<. 
Medhr-dsthi, 27, 28, 29, 95, 153, 

Medical authors, 1-7 ; schools, 

7, 8; Version, 4, 24, 37, 48. 
Medicine man, 7, 9. 
Medullary cavity, 133. 
Megasthenes, iii. 
Mental protuberance, 129. 
Metacarpus, metacarpal bones, v, 

ix, 28, 80. See saldkd. 
Metatarsus, metatarsal bones, 

28, 80. See ialdkd. 
Metopic suture, 170ff. 
Minor surgery, 5, 6, 162, 237. 
Mitaksard, 4:2, 45, 46, 51, 52 ff., 

59, 60. 
MiTEAMi^EA, 46, 52 ff., 204, 207. 
Muscles, 35, 102, 224, 232, 239. 

Nagakjuna, 9, 99. 

Nails, 84, 93, 210. See nakha. 

Nakha, 22, 26, 27, 32, 35, 38, 
46, 49, 53, 62, 91, 112, 119, 
120, 121, 183. 198, 201, 203, 

206, 207, 212, 215, 217. 
Nalaka, 23, 25, 26. 38, 58, 63, 

76, 78, 80, 121, 227. 
Nanda Pandita, 42, 46, 57, 59, 

60, 135, 147 ff., 211, 231. 
Nape of neck, 231, 232. 
Nakayana, 169. 
Ndsd, 47, 50, 53, 63, 71, 87, 89, 

92, 112, 119, 177 ff., 202,204, 

207, 214, 216, 217. 

Nasal bone, 40. See ndsd, nds- 

dsthi, ndsikd. 
Nds-dsthi, 39. 
Ndsikd, 23, 26, 27, 36, 112, 119, 

120, 169, 177 ff. 
Neck, neck-bones, 64, 82, 84. 86, 

90, 104, 108, 110, 141, 210, 

223, 229, 231. See grlvd. 
Necklet, 80. 
Nemi, 8. 

Netra, 55, 63, 217. 
Nibandha Samgraha, 16. 
Nidana, 2, 13, 14, 17, 160 ff., 

235, 236. 
Nitamha, 74, 91, 118, 120. 138. 

152 ff. 
Non-medical Version, 4. 20, 24, 

25, 37, 40 ff., 59 ff., 61 ff., 85. 
Nose, X, 30, 37, 48, 77, 93, 104. 

110, 210, 223, 237. See ndsd. 

ndsikd, and gha,ndsthikd. 
Number-list of bones, 77. 
Nyaya Candrika, 16. 


Occipital bone, x, 119, 168 ff. 
Octopartite science, 6. 
Odontoid process, 157. 
Olecranon process, ix. See 



Os calcis. See heel, pdrmi. 
Ossa innominata, 154. 
Ossa pubis, 153, 155. 


Padmini Prabodha, 221. 
Palatal cavity, 24. See tdlusaka. 
Palate, 76, 77, 84, 86, 93, 104, 

210, 223 ; hard, 174, 181, 

202, 213. See tdlu. 
Palatine process, 174, 176, 181. 
Palm, of the hand, 28, 236. 
Pakchanada, 2, 3. 
Pancoast, Professor, 122 ff. 
Pdnika, 39. 

Pdni-pdd-dnguli, 118, 122£f. 
Pdni-jydda-kddhd, 123 ff. 
Pdni - i^dda - ialdh - ddhisthdna, 

124 ff. 
Panjara, 27, 141. 
Panjikd, 16. 
Parietal bone, x, 119, 168 ff., 

Pdrsni, 23, 26, 27, 32, 38, 46, 

49; 53, 62, 71, 87, 88, 91, 

103, 112, 118, 122, 126, 
128 ff., 198, 201, 206, 213, 
215, 217. 

PaHu, 106. 

ParSuka, 141 ff., 144 ff, 199, 

Pdrk-a, 27, 71, 87, 89, 106, 112, 

141, 144 ff. 
Pdrsvaka, 23, 26, 27, 39, 47, 50, 

53, 63, 91, 112, 118, 120, 138, 

141 ff., 144 ff, 202, 204, 214, 

Parts of the body, three, 121 ; 

six, 46, 62, 198, 201, 206, 

217. See sexipartite. 
Parvan, 36. 
Patala, 79. 

Patella, ix, 118, 131 ff. See^awu. 
Pathak, Professor, 20, 41. 
Pdyu, 49. 
Pelvis, pelvic cavity, 70, 84, 90, 

104, 118, 222. See ironi. 

Penis (penis-bone), 31, 82, 229. 
See medhrdsthi. 

Perinaeum, 153. 

Phalanges, ix, 61, 65, 73, 77, 80, 
84, 93, 118. See angtdi. 

Pinna, x, 184. 

Prabdhu, 60, 129. 

Peabhuram Jivanaeam, 68. 

Pratibandhaka, 91, 126, 127. 

Pratisthd, 112, 113. 

Processes, 115, 151. See acro- 
mion, alveolar, odontoid, ole- 
cranon, palatine, transverse, 
spinous, styloid, zygomatic. 

Prominences, of the cheek, see 
ganda-kuta ; of the jaw, see 

Prstha, 27, 28, 36, 47, 49, 53, 
63, 71, 75, 87, 89, 91, 112, 
118, 141, 147, 148 ff., 156, 
199, 202, 207, 210, 213, 215, 
217, 241. 

Prstha-gat-dsthi, 23, 26, 27, 38, 
'i48, 151. 

Prsth-dsthi, 112, 148. 

Pr'stha-vamsa, 121, 142, 148 ff. 

P'r'sti, 106, 112, 148,241. 

Pubes, pubic bone, pubic arch, 
ix, 71, 75, 77, 80, 93, 222. 
See bhaga. 


Radius, ix, 118, 129. 

Rajanighantu, 233. 

Rami, 176. 

Rangachaeya, 41. 

Restored Recension, 26, 86, 187, 

Ribs, 30, 31, 36, 61, 80, 84, 93, 
108,151,210,216. Seejaarsm, 
2)drsvaka, jyarhi, pariuka. 

RiGVEDA, 164 ff. 

Rucaka, 76. 


Sacrum, sacral bone, 75, 76, 77, 
93, 94, 222. See trika. 



Sadanga, 22, 27. 

S'dkhd, 121. 

Sakthi, 22, 27, 83, 120. 

S'aldkd, 23, 26, 27, 32, 36, 38, 

46, 49, 53, 54, 62, 71, 73, 

81 ff., 91, 99, 103, 112, 118, 

120, 121, 122, 123 ff., 198, 

201, 204, 206, 207, 212, 215, 

S'dldkya, 5, 6. 
S^alya, 4, 6, 70. 
Sdmudga, 137. 
S'ankaea Shastri, 21. 
S'ankha, 23, 26, 39, 53, 71, 87, 

89, 92, 112, 119, 120, 172, 

199, 202, 204, 207. 
Sankhaka, 27, 47, 50, 63, 119, 

138, 172, 214, 216, 217. 
Sandhi, 166 ff. 
S'akIea, 61. 
S'aeTha Padmixi, 17. 70, 74, 90, 

S'arTe-adhyaya, 42. 
S'aeTe-avayavah, 43. 
Saevanga Sundaei, 17. 
S^atapatha Beahmana, 4, 8, 9, 

104 ff., 144, 157,' 164, 238, 

240, 241. 
Scapula, ix, 231, 232. See amsa- 

Scapulo-clavicular articulation, 

Sclerotica, 78, 184. 
Scrotum, 72, 153, 227, 234. 
S'ephas, 234. 
Sexipartite body, 22, 27. 
Shoulder, 210, 236. See ariisa. 
Shoulder-blades, 34, 53, 60, 77 ff., 

84, 86, 93, 110, 231 ff. See 

mhsa-ja, amsa-phalaka, amsa- 

Shoulder-girdle, 74, 75, 97, 113, 

138 ff. 
Shoulder-joint, 133, 230. 
Shoulder-peak (summit), 91, 93, 

Shoulder-seat, 36, 231, 233. 


Sides, of the body, 70, 77, 90, 

104, 222. See])drha. 
Sigmoid cavity, 132. 
hirah-kapdla, 23, 26,28,47, 50, 

63, 119, 120, 121, 168 ff., 202. 
S^iras, 71, 87, 89, 92, 109, 168 ff. 
S'irodhi, 223. 

Siro-griva, 23, 24, 27, 35, 121. 
S'lrsa-kapdla, 39. 
S'isna, 234. 
Skandha, 112, 156. 
Skeleton, X, 72.90, 117,120,121, 

177. See asthi-samgraha. 
Skin, 105, 109. 
Skull. See cranium. 
Sockets, of ribs, 210. See kau- 

laka, sthdla, sthdlaka. 
Sockets, of teeth, 53, 73, 84, 93, 

174, 210. See dant-olukJiala, 

sthdla, silksma, uliikhala. 
Sole, of the 'foot, 28, 77, 222, 

236. See tola. 
Sphenoid bone, 119, 168 ff., 178. 
Spine, spinal column, ix, 106, 

108, 152. See prstha, prstha- 

Spinous process, 147, 151. 157. 


Sroni,'7\, 75, 87, 89, 112, 126, 

152 ff., 202. 
S'roni-phalaka, 23, 26, 27, 38, 46, 

49, 53, 63. 112, 118, 120, 
152 ff., 199, 207, 213. 215, 

Stana, 112, 144. 
Stein, Dr., 3, 20. 
Stexzlee, Professor, 165. 
Sterno-clavicular articulation, 36. 
Sternum, ix, 141. See uras, 

Sthdla, 46, 49, 61, 65, 146, 182, 

198, 201, 204, 206, 212. 
Sthdlaka, 23. 26, 28, 36, 39, 47, 

50, 91, 112, 144-147, 150, 
151, 199, 202, 203, 207, 214, 

Sthdna. 28, 46, 49, 51, 53, 54, 
59, 62, 71, 73, 87, 93, 94, 99, 



103, 112, 198, 201, 204, 206, 

215, 217. 
Styloid process, ix, 80, 115. See 

Tnanihandha, manika. 
Suksma, 61, 65, 182, 212, 215. 
SuLAPANi, 46, 52 ff., 203, 207. 
Superciliary ridges. See lalata. 
Surgery, 4 ; major, 6 ; minor, 6, 

162, 237; ophthalmic, 8; 

origin of, 8. 
Surgi cal instruments, operations, 5 . 
Su^RUTA, the elder, iii, v, 4, 5, 7, 

8, 10, 24, 28,43, 63,64, 68 ff., 

92, 96, 98 ff., 102 ff, 107 ff, 

113, 115, 123, 218 ff., 224- 

Su^RUTA II, 5, 1 0. 

Symphysis pubis, 153, 155. 


Taxila, 7. 

Tala, 71, 73, 81 ff., 87, 88, 99, 

103, 112, 118, 120, 121, 124, 

Talmudic osteology, v, viii. 
Tdlu, 27, 31, 63, 71, 87, 89, 

92, 112, 119, 174 ff., 181 ff., 

Taliisaka, 23, 26, 36, 37, 38, 39, 

40, 46, 49, 53, 55, 66, 112, 

119, 174 ff., 181 ff., 199, 202, 

206, 213, 215. 
Tarsus, tarsal bones. See references 

under carpus. 
Taruna, 76, 80, 159 ff., 179, 183, 

Teeth, 53, 77, 84, 93, 104, 201, 

210. See danta, daSana. 
Temples, temporal bones, x, 61, 

76, 77, 84, 93, 135, 210, 213, 

223, 231, 232. 
Thigh, 36, 77, 80, 84, 93, 110, 

210, 222. See ilru, uru-nalaka, 

Thorax, thoracic cage, 118, 141, 

204, 207, 233. See ^favjara. 
Throat, 34, 36, 134, 158, 231, 

236. See kantha. 

Thumb, 36, 116. 

Tibia, ix, 118, 130. 

Tie-bones, of jaw, 53. See hanu- 

handhana, hanu - mida - han- 

TiSATA, 100. 

Toe, 35, 70, 116, 183, 230. 

Trachea. See kantha-nddi, wind- 

Transverse proces?, 105, 115, 
144 ff., 147, 151 ff., 157, 241. 

Triad, medical, 101. 

Trika, 27, 49, 71, 74, 91, 118, 
120, 135, 140, 149, 152, 232. 

Trocar, 5. 

Trunk, 24, 36, 74, 75, 86, 87, 
88, 91, 104, 110, 118, 133, 
198, 201, 206, 217, 234, 240. 
See antarddhi. 

Tubercles, of ribs, 116, 210. See 

Tunic, of eye, 78. 

Turbinated bone, 119, 177. 

Tympanum, 184. 


(Jchlakha, 112. 

Udara, 5, 70, 74, 86, 89, 106, 

109, 148, 241. 
Ulna, ix, 118, 129. 
Uluka, 62, 217. See ulukliala. 
Uhlkhala, 22, 26, 27, 35, 38, 65, 

92, 119. iiee sthdla, si'iksma. 
Upastha, 234. 

Upendeanath Sen, 21, 141, 188. 
Uras, 23, 26, 38, 47, 50, 53, 61, 

63, 71, 87, 89, 91, 105, 112, 

118, 120, 141 ff., 200, 202, 

204, 207, 214, 216, 217. 
Urdhva-jatru, 160 ff., 237. 
Uru, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 38, 

57, 60, 63, 71, 87, 88, 91, 

112, 118, 133, 199, 202, 213, 

Uru-nalaka, 65, 112, 118, 121, 

Uru-phalaka, 46, 49, 53, 58, 64, 

206, 215. 




Vachaspati, 16, 17. 
Vagbhata, the elder, vi, 2, 6, 7, 

10, 11-16, 24, 25, 59, 81, 

90ff., 98ff., 102ff., 125, 128fF., 

223, 225, 227, 229, 231, 232, 

234, 235, 236, 239. 
Vagbhata II, 6, 11, 17, 235, 

Vaksas, 28, 141ff. 
Vala^ja, 75, 76, 80, 103, 131. 
Yalmlka disease, 161, 235-237. 
Vanksana-madhya. See iuteriliac 

Varanga, 234. 

Vertebrae, cervical, x. See grlvd. 
Veiiebrae, lumbar, ix, 118, 149ff., 

Vertebrae, sacral, ix, 150. See 

sacrum, trika. 
Vertebrae, thoracic, 118, 149 flf., 

157, 241. 
Vertebral column, 72, 73, 77, 80, 

102, 115, 135, 155, 231, 232. 

See prstha, lyrstha-vamia. 
Vijaya Eakshita, 3, 14, 17, 

160 ff. 
VlJNAKE^VARA, 46,51, 52 ff., 59, 

200, 207. 
Virya, 105, 241. 

VlSHNUDHABilOTTARA, 41 ff., 61, 


Visxu Smrti, 40 ff., 52, 57. 
Vital spots, 82, 230, 232, 233, 

235. See mar man. 
Vifapa, 72, 154. 
Vomer, 119, 177. 
Vrlhimukha, 5. 
Vulva (vulval bone), 31. See 


Waistband, 80. 
Waste product, 35, 183. 
Windpipe, x, 82, 84, 94, 104, 

110,210,223,236. Seejatru, 

Wise,' Dr., 81, 117. 
Wristlet, 131. 
Wrists, wrist-bones, 30, 40, 50, 

51, 58, 64, 65, 67, 72, 77, 80, 

84, 93, 97, 115, 206, 227, 229, 

230. See manika, manihandJm. 


Yajnavalkta, 4, 20, 25, 30, 31, 
41 ff., 58, 59, 62, 63, 66, 79, 
101, 106, 124, 135, 144, 165, 

Yajnavalkya Dhabma^astba, 
4, 40 ff. 

Yogin, 212. 

Yoni, 153. 


Zygomatic process, 135. 

Oxford : Printed at the Clarendon Press by Horace Hart, M.A. 



Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc 

Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, from the LVIth to the CXXIIIrd Olympiad, 
Thu'd edition. 4to. £1 14s. 6d. From the CXXIVth Olympiad to the Death 
of Augustus. Second edition. 4to. £11-28. Epitome. 8vo. 6s. 6d. 

Clinton's Fasti Romani, from the death of Augustus to the death of 
HeracHus. Two volumes. 4to. £-2 2s. Epitome. 8vo. 7s. 

Greswell's Fasti Temporis Catholici. 4 vols. svo. £2 los. 

Tables and Introduction to Tables. Svo. los. Origines Kalendariae Italicac. 
4 vols. Svo. £2 2s. Origines Kalendariae Hellcnicac. 6 vols. 8vo. £4 4s. 

A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions. By e. l. Hicks. 

New edition, revised by G. F. Hill. 8vo. lOs. (id. net. 

Latin Historical Inscriptions, illustrating the history of the Early 

Empire. By G. M'^N. Rushfokth. 8vo. lOs. net. 

Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian 
Wars. By G. F. Hill. 8vo. Reissue, revised. lOs. (Jd. net. 

Sources for Roman History, b.c. 133 to. By a. h. j. Gheevidge 

and A. M. Clay. Crown Svo. 5s. 6d. net. 

A Manual of Ancient History. ByG.RAWMxsov. 2nded. svo. us. 

Finlay's History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans (B.C.14G) 
to A.D. 1S64. A new edition, revised, and in part re- written, with many 
additions, by the Author, and edited by H. F. To/Eii. 7 vols. Svo. 

The History of Sicily from the earliest times. By E. A. Freeman. 
Vols. I and H. [The Native Nations : The Phoenician and Greek Settle- 
ments to the beginning of Athenian Intervention.] Svo. £2 2s. 
Vol. III. The Athenian and Carthaginian Invasions. £1 4s. 
Vol. IV. From the Tyranny of Dionysios to the Death of Agathokles, 
Edited from posthumous MSS, by A. J. Evans. £1 Is. 

Italy and her Invaders (a.d. 376-814). with plates and maps. Eight 

volumes. Svo. By T. Hone. kin. Vols. I-IV in the second edition. 

I-II. The Visigothic, Hunnish, and Vandal Invasions, and the Herulian 

Mutiny. £2 2s. 
III-IV. The Ostrogothic Invasion. The Imperial Restoration. £1 16s. 
V-VI. The Lombard Invasion, and the Lombard Kingdom. £1 16s. 
VII-VIII. Frankish Invasions, and the Frankish Empire. £1 4s. 

The Dynasty of Theodosius ; or. Seventy Years' struggle with the 
Barbarians. By the same author. Crown Svo. 6s. 

Aetolia ; its Geography, Topogi-aphy, and Antiquities. 

By W. J. WooDHOLfSE. With maps and illustrations. Royal Svo. £1 Is. net. 

The Islands of the Aegean. By h. f. Tozf.u. Crown svo. ss. ed. 
Dalmatia, the Quarnero, and I stria; with Cettigne and Grado. 

ByT. G.Jackson. Three volumes. With plates«nd illustrations. Svo. 

Cramer s Description of Asia Minor. Two volumes, svo, iis. 
Description of Ancient (ireece. 3 vols. svo. i6s. 6d. 

K. 6,000 1 


The Cities and 15islioprics of Phrygia. By w. m. RAiisAv. 

Royal 8vo. Vol. I, Part I. The Lycos Valley and South-Western Phrygia. 
IHs. net. Vol. I, Par. II. AVcst and West Central Phrygia. £1 Is. net. 

Stories of tlie High Priests of Memphis, the Sethon of 

Herodotus, and the Demotic Tales of Kharanas. By F. Ll. Ghhfith. With 
Portfolio containing seven facsimiles. Royal Svo. £2 7s. 6d. net. 

The Arab Conquest of Egypt. By a. j. Butler. with maps and 

plans. 8vo. 16s. net. 

Baghdad during the Abbasid Cahphate, from contemporary 

sources. By G. Le SrRAxt;E, With eight plans. 8vo. 16s. net. 


Ancient Ivhotan. Detailed report of Archaeological explorations 
in Chinese Turkestan carried out and described under the orders of H.M. 
Indian Government by M. Aurei. Steix. Vol. I. Text, with descriptive list 
of antiques, seventy-two illustrations in the text, and appendices. Vol. II. 
One hundred and nineteen collotype and other illustrations and a map. 
2 vols. 4to. £5 5s. net. 

Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, including 
the Cabinet of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Vol. I. By Vincent A. Smith. 
Royal 8vo, 30s. net; or separately. Part I. The Early Foreign Dynasties and 
the Guptas, 15s. net. Part II. Ancient Coins of Indian Types, 6s. net. 
Part III. Persian, Mediaeval, South Indian, and Miscellaneous Coins, 
10s. 6d. net. Vol. II. Part I. The Sultans of Delhi. Part II. Contem- 
porary Dynasties in India, by H. Nelson Wright, with 25 plates. Royal 
8vo. 30s. net. (The first section of Part II by Sir Jajies Bourdillon.) 
Vol. Ill in the press. (PubHshed for the Trustees of the Indian Museum.) 

Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt. By a. j. Butler. 2 vols. 

8vo. 30s. 

A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum. By j. L. Myres and 

]\Iax Ohkeialsch-Richter. Hvo. With eight plates, 7s. 6d. net. 

A Catalogue of the Sparta Museum. By m. n. Tod and 

a. j, B. Wace. Svo. 10s, 6d, net. 

Catalogue of the Greek Abases in the Ashmolean 

Museum, By P. Gardner. Small folio, linen, with 26 plates. £3 3s. net. 

The Cults of the Greek States. By l. r. Farnell, svo. 

Vols, I and II, with 61 plates and over 100 illustrations. £1 12s, net : 
Vols. Ill and IV, with H6 plates. £1 12s. net. 

Classical Archaeology in Schools. By p. Gardner and j. l, 

Myres, Svo, Second edition. Paper covers. Is, net. 

Introduction to Greek Sculpture. By L, e, Upcoit, Second 

edition. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. 
Marmora Oxoniensia, inscriptiones Graecae ad Chandleri exempla 

editae, cur. Gcl. Roberts, 1791, Crown Svo. 3s, 6d. 
De Antiquis MarmoribuS, Blasii Caryophill. 1828, 7s. 6d. 

Fragmenta Herculanensia. a Catalogue of the Oxford copies of the 
Herculanean Rolls, with texts of .several papyri. ByW. Scorr, Royal 8vo, £1 Is, 
Thirty-six Engravings of Texts and Alphabets from the Herculanean 
Fragments. Folio. Small paper, 10s. 6d., large paper, £1 Is. 

Herculanens'' ' ^'^ohlminum Partes ii. 1824, svo, los. 


English History : Sources 

Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel ; with supplementary 

extracts from the others. A Revised Text, edited, with introduction, notes, 
appendices, and glossary, by C. and J. Eari.e. Two volumes. 
Crown 8vo, leather-back. Vol. I. Text, appendices, and glossary. 10s. 6d. 
Vol. 11. Introduction, notes, and index. 12s. 6d. 

The Saxon Chronicles (rsr-iooi a. d.). Crown svo, stiff covers. 39. 

Baedae Opera Historica, edited by C. Plummer. Two volumes. 
Crown Svo, leather back. £1 Is. net. 

Handbook to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonlc Documents, 
by J. Earle. Crown Svo. IGs. 

'J'he Crawford Collection of early charters and Documents, now in 
the Bodleian Library. Edited by A. S. Napier and W. H. Stevexson. 
Small 4to, cloth. 12s. 

Asser's Life of Alfred, with the Annals of St. Neot, 

edited by W. H. Stevenson. Crown Svo. 13s. net. 

The Alfred Jewel, an historical essay. With illustrations and a map, 
by J. Eable. Small 4to, buckram. 12s. 6d. net. 

Chronicles of London. Edited, with introduction and notes, by 
C. L. KiNGSFORD. Svo. lOs. O'd. net. 

Stow's Survey of London. Edited byC. L. Kingsford. (in the press.) 

Dialo^US de ScaCCariO (De necessariis observantiis Scaccarii dialogus) 
by Richard, Son of Nigel. Edited bj' A. Httghes, C. G. Cruju', and C. 
Johnson, with introduction and notes. Svo. 12s. 6d. net. 

The Song of Lewes. Edited from the MS, with introduction and 
notes, by C. L. Kingsiord. Extra fcap Svo. 5s. 

Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, edited by Sir 

E. Maunde Thompson, K.C.B. Small Ito, I8s. ; cloth, gilt top, £1 Is. 

Passio et JMiraCula 15eati Olaili. Edited from the Twelfth-century 
MS by F. Metcalfe. Small 4 to. 6s. 

Gascoigne's Theological Dictionary (' Liber Veritatum'): selected 

passages, ilhlstrating the condition of Church and State, IIOS-HjS. With 
an introduction by J. E. Tmoroid RotiERs. Small Ito. lOs. 6d. 

Fortescue's Gov crnance of England : otherwise called The 

Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy. A revised text, 
edited, with introduction, etc, by C. Pi.ij.h.mkk. Svo, leather back. 12s. <id. 



The Protests of the Lords, including those which have been 
expunged, from 16-24 to 1874 ; with historical introductions. By J. E. 
Thohold Rogers, In three volumes. 8vo. £2 2s. 

Index to \\ ills proved in the Court of the Chancellor of the University 
of Oxford, etc. By J. GRimxHs. Royal 8vo. 3s. 6d. 

The Clarendon Press Series of Charters, 

Statutes, etc 

From the earliest times to 1307. By Bishop Stubbs. 

Select Charters and other illustrations of EngUsh Constitutional History. 
Eighth edition. Crown 8vo. Hs. 6d. 

From 1307 to 1558. In Preparation. By G. W. Protheko. 

Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents. 

From 1558 to 1625. 

Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents of 
the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Thurd edition. 

Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

From 1625 to 1660. By S. R. Gardiner. 

The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolu- 
tion. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

Calendars, etc 

Calendar of Charters and Rolls preserved in the Bodleian Library, 
8vo. XI lis. 6d, 

Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers preserved in the 

Bodleian Library. In three volumes, 1869-76, 

Vol, I, From 1523 to January 1649, Svo, 18s. Vol. II. From 1649 to 
1654. 8vo. 16s. Vol. III. From 1655 to 1657. 8vo. 14s. 

Hakluyt's Principal Navigations, being narratives of the Voyages 
of the Elizabethan Seamen to America. Selection edited by E. J. Payxe. 
Crown Svo, with portraits. Second edition. First and Second Series, 
5s. each. 

Also abridged, in one volume, with additional notes, maps, &c., by 
C, Raymond Beazley, Crown Svo, with illustrations. 4s. 6d. Also, 
separately, ' The Voyages of Hawkins, Frobisher, and Drake.' 2s. 6d. 

Aubrey's ' Brief Lives,' set down between the Years 1669 and 1696. 

Edited from the Author's MSS by A. Clark, Two volumes. 8vo, £1 5s. 
Whitelock's JNlemorials of English Affairs from 1625 to 1660. 4 vols. 

Svo. £1 10s. 
Ludlow's Memoirs, I625-I672. Edited, with Appendices of Letters 

and illustrative documents, by C. H. Firth. Two volumes. Svo. £1 16s. 
Luttrell's Diary, a brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, 1678-1714. 

Six volumes. Svo, £1 4s. 

Burnet's History of James II. svo, 9s, ed. 

Life of Sir M. Hale, with Fell's Life of 
Dr. Hammond. Smaiisvo. 2s. ed. 


Burnet's History of My Own Time. A new edition based on 

thatofM. J. RouTH. Edited by Osmund Airy. Vol.1. 12s. 6d. Vol. li. 
(Completing Charles the Second, with Index to Vols. I and II.) 12s. 6d. 

Supplement, derived from Burnet's Memoirs, Autobiography, etc., all 
hitherto unpublished. Edited by H. C. Foxcroit, 1902. 8vo, 16s. net. 

The Whitefoord Papers, from 1739 to 1810. Edited by w. a. s. 

Hewixs. 8vo. 12s. t)d. 

History of Oxford 

a complete list of the Publications of the Oxford Historical Society 
can be obtained from Mr. Frowde. 

Manuscript Materials relating to the History of Oxford ; 

contained in the printed catalogues of the Bodleian and College Libraries. 
By F. Madak. 8vo. 7s. (id. 

The Early Oxford Press, a Bibliography of Printing and Pubhshing 
at Oxford, ' 1468 '-1640. With notes, appendices, and illustrations. By 
F. Madan. 8vo. 18s. 

Cotton's Typographical Gazetteer. First Series. Svo. 12s. ed. 
Ebert's Bibliographical Dictionary. 4 vols. svo. £3 3s. net. 

Bishop Stubbs's and Professor Freeman's Books 
The Constitutional History of England, in its Origin and 

Development. By W. Stubbs. Library edition. Three volumes. Demy 
Svo. £2 8s. Also in three volumes, crown Svo, price 12s. each. 

Seventeen Lectures on the study of Mediaeval and Modern History 
and kindred subjects, 1S67-1884. By the same. Third edition, revised and 
enlarged, 1900. Crown 8vo, half-roan. Ss. 6d. 

History of the Norman Conquest of England ; its Causes 

and Results. By E. A. Freeman. Vols. I, II and V (EngHsh edition) are 
out of print. 

Vols. HI and IV. £1 Is. each. Vol. VI (Index). 10s. 6d. 

A Short History of the Norman Conquest of England. 

Third edition. By the same. Extra fcap Svo. 2s. 6d. 

The Reign of William ]lufus and the Accession of Henry the 
First. By the same. Two volumes. 8vo. £1163. 

Companion to English History (Middle Ages). Edited by F. p. 

Barnard. With 97 illustrations. Crown Svo. 8s. 6d. net. 

School History of England to the death of Victoria. With maps, 
plans, etc. By O. M. Edwahhs, R. S. Rait and others. Crown Svo, 3s. (id. 


Special Periods and Biographies 
Ancient Britain and the Invasions of JuHus Caesar. By 

T. Rice Holmes, 8vo. 31s. net. 

Life and Times of Alfred the Great, being the Ford Lectures 
for 190]. By C. Plimmeh. 8vo. js. net. 

The Domesday Boroughs. By Adolphus Ballard. Svo. 6s. ed. net. 

A^illainage in England. Essays in English Mediaeval History. By 
P. VixoGRADOFF. Hvo, leather back. Ifis. net. 

English Society in the Eleventh Century. Essays in 

English Mediaeval History. By P. Vinogradoff. Svo. 16's. net. 
The Gild Merchant : a contribution to British municipal history. By 

C. Gross. Two volumes. Svo, leather back, £1 4s. 
The AVelsh ^^"arS of Edward I ; a contribution to mediaeval 

military history. By J. E. Morris. Svo. 9s. 6d. net. 

The Great Revolt of 138L ByC. Omax. with two maps. svo. 

Ss. 6d. net. 
Lancaster and York. (a.d. 1399-U85). By Sir J. H. Ramsay. Two 

volumes. Svo, with Index, £'1 17s. 6d. Index separately. Is. 6d. 

Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell. By R. b. Merrimax. 

In two volumes. [Vol. I, Life and Letters, 1523-1535, etc. Vol. II, Letters, 
1536-1540, notes, index, etc.] Svo. 18s. net. 

A History of England, principally in the Seventeenth Century, By 
L, vox Raxke. Translated under the superintendence of G. W. Kitchix 
and C. W. Boase. Six volumes. Svo. £3 3s. net. Index separatelj'. Is. 

Sir Walter Ralegh, a Biography, by W. Stebbixg. Post Svo. 6s. net. 

Biographical INIemoir of Dr. William JNIarkham, Arch- 
bishop of York, by Sir Clemexts ]Markhaji, K.C. B. Svo. 5s. net. 

The Life and A^'orks of John Arbuthnot. By g. a. Aukex. 

Svo, cloth extra, with Portrait. 16s. 

Life and Letters of Sir Henry A^'otton. By L. Pearsall- 

Smith. Svo. Two volumes. 25s. net. 

Great Britain and Hanover. By A, w. Ward. Crown svo. 5s. 
History of the Peninsular War. By c. Omax. To be completed 

in six volumes, Svo, with many maps, plans, and portraits. 

Already published : Vol. I. 1SO7-1S09, to Corunna, Vol. II. 
1809, to Talavera. Vol. III. In the Press. 

Anglo-Chinese Commerce and Diplomacy : mainly in the 

nineteenth century. By A. J. Sargext. 12s. 6d. net. 

Frederick ^"ork Powell. a Life and a selection from his Letters 
and Occasional Writings. By Oliver Eltox. Two volumes. Svo. With 
photogravure portraits, facsimiles, etc. 21s. net. 

David Binning Monro : a short Memoir. By J. Cook Wilsox. 
Svo, stiff boards, with portrait. 2s. net. 

F. W. JMaitland. Two lectures by A. L. Smith. Svo. 2s. 6d, net. 



History and Geography of America 
and the British Colonies 

For other Geographical books, see page 10. 

History of the New World called America. By e. j. Payxk. 

Vol.1. 8vo. 18s. Bk. I. The Discovery. Bk. II, Part I. Aboriginal America. 
Vol. II. 8vo. 14s. Bk. II, Part II. Aboriginal America (concluded). 

The Canadian War of 1812. By Sir c. P. Lucas, k.c.m.g. svo. 

With eight maps. 12s. 6d. net. 

Historical Geography of the British Colonies. By sir c. P. 

Lucas, K.C.M.G. Crown 8vo. 

Introduction. New edition by H. E. Egertov. 1903. (Origin and 
growth of the Colonies.) With eight maps. .Ss. 6d. In cheaper binding, 
2s. 6d. 

Vol. I. The jNIediterranean and Eastern Colonies. 

With 13 maps. Second edition, revised and brought up to date, by 
R. E. Stubbs. 1906. 5s. 

A"ol. II. The West Indian Colonies. With twelve 

maps. Second edition, revised and brought up to date, by C. Atchley, 
I.S.O. 1905. 7s. 6d. 

Vol. III. West Afi'ica. Second Edition. Revised to the 
end of 1899 by H. E. Egf.rton. With five maps. 7s. (id. 

Vol. IV. South and East Africa. Historical and Geo- 
graphical. With eleven maps. 9s. 6d. 
Also Parti. Historical. 1898. 6s. 6d. Part II. 1903. Geographical. 
3s. 6d. 

Vol. V. Canada, Part I. i9oi. 6s. Part ii, byH.E.EcERTOK. 

(In the press.) 

Vol. A I. Australasia. By J. D. Rogers. 1907. With 22 maps. 
7s. 6d. Also Part I, Historical, 4s. 6d. Part II, Geographical, 3s. 6d. 

History of the Dominion of Canada. By W. P. Gresweli.. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d. 
Geography of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland. By the same author. 

With ten maps. 1891. Crown Svo. 6s. 
Geography of Africa South of the Zambesi. Witli nuips. 189.?. By the same 

author. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d. 

The Claims of the Study of Colonial History upon the 
attention of the University of Oxford. An inaugural lecture 

delivered on April 28, 1906, by H. E. Egerton. Svo, paper covers, Is. net. 
Historical Atlas. Europe and her Colonies, 27 maps. 35s. net. 

Cornewall- Lewis's Essay on the (Government of Depen- 
dencies. Edited by Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G. Svo, quarter-bound, Us. 


History of India 

The Imperial Gazetteer of India. New edition. To be com- 
pleted in twenty-six volumes. 8vo. Subscription price, cloth, X'.5 net; 
morocco back, £6 6s. net. The four volumes of ' The Indian Empire ' (I, III, 
IV are ready) separately fis. net each, in cloth, or 7s. 6d. net with morocco 
back; the Atlas separately Ijs. net in cloth, or 17s. 6d. net with morocco 
back. Subscriptions may be sent through any bookseller. 

Reprints from the Imperial Gazetteer. 

A sketch of the Flora of British India. By Sir Joseph Hooker. 8vo. Paper 

covers. Is. net. 
The Indian Army. .\ sketch of its History and Organization. 8vo. Paper 

covers. Is. net. 

A Brief History of the Indian Peoples. By Sir w. w. Hixter. 

Revised up to 1903 by W. H. Hutton. Eighty-ninth thousand. 3s. (id. 
Rulers of India. Edited by Sir W.W. Hunter. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. each. 
Babar. By S. Laxe-Poole. 
Akbar. By Colonel Mallesok. 
Albuquerque. By H. Morse Stephens. 
Aurancrzib. Bv S. Laxe-Poole. 
Madhava Kao Sindhia. By H. G. Keene. 
Lord Clive. By Colonel Malleson. 
Dupleix. By Colonel Mau.eson. 
Warren Hastings. By Captain L. J. Troiter. 
The Marquis of Cornwallis. By W. S. Seton-Karh. 
Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan. By L. B. Bowring. 
The Marquis ^^'ellesley, K.G. By W. H. HirrroN. 
Marquess of Hastings. By Major Ross-of-Bladexsbuhg. 
Mountstuart Elphinstone. By J. S. Conox. 
Sir Thomas Munro. By J. Bradshaw. 
Earl Amherst. By Axxe T. Ritchie and R. Evans. 
Lord William Bentinck. By D. C. Boui.ger. 
The Earl of Auckland. By Captain L. J. Troiter. 
Viscount Hardinge. By his son, Viscount Hardinge. 
Ranjit Singh. By Sir L. Griffin. 
The Marquess of Dalhousie. By Sir W. W. Hunter. 
John Russell Colvin. By Sir A. Colvix. 
Clyde and Strathnairn. By Major-General Sir O. T. Burxe. 
Earl Canning. By Sir H. S. Cunningham. 
Lord Lawrence. By Sir C. Aitchisox. 
The Earl of Mayo. By Sir W. W. Hvxter. 

Supplementary volumes. 
Asoka. By V. A. S.MiTH. 3s. 6d. 
James Thomason. By Sir R. Temple. 3s. 6d. 
Sir Henry Lawrence, the Pacificator. By Lieut.-General J. J. 
M'^Leod Ix.ves. 3s. 6d. 



The Government of India, being a digest of the statute Law relating 
thereto ; with historical introduction and ilhxstrative documents. By Sir 
C. P. Ilhert. Second edition, 1907. 10s. 6d. net. 

The Early Histoiy of India from 600 b.c. to the Mu- 

hammadan Conquest, including the invasion of Alexander the 
Great. By V. A. Smith. 8vo. With maps, plans, and other illustrations. 
Second edition, revised and enlarged. 14s. net. 

The Enghsh Factories in India: Vol. I, 1618-1621. By 

W. Foster. 8vo. (Published under the patronage of His Majesty's Secretary 
of State for India in Council.) 1^2s. 6d. net. Vol. II, 1622-1623. 
(In the press.) 

Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1635-1639. 

By E. B. Sainshury. Introduction by W. Foster. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. 

Wellesley's Despatches, Treaties, and other Papers relating to his 
Government of India. Selection edited by S. J. Owen. 8vo. £1 4s. 

Wellington's Despatches, Treaties, and other Papers relating to 
India. Selection edited by S. J. Owen. 8vo. £1 4s. 

Hastings and the Rohilla War. By Sir j, Strachey. Svo. los. ed. 

European History 

Historical Atlas of Modern Europe, from the DecUne of the 

Roman Empire. Containing 90 maps, with letterpress to each map : the 
maps printed by W. & A. K. Johnston, Ltd., and the whole edited by 
R. L. Poole. 

In one volume, imperial 4to, half-persian, £5 15s. 6d. net ; or in selected 

sets — British Empire^ etc, at various prices from 30s. to 35s. net each ; 

or in single maps. Is. (id. net each. Prospectus on application. 

Genealogical Tables illustrative of Modem History. By H. B. 
George. Fourth (1904) edition. Oblong 4to, boards. 7s. 6d. 

The Life and Times of .James the P^irst of Aragon. By 

F. D. Swift. Svo. lis. Gd. 
A History of France, with maps, plans, and Tables. By G. W. Kitchin. 
New edition. In three volumes, crown Svo, each lOs. (id. 

Vol. I, to 1453. Vol. II, 1453-1624. Vol. Ill, 1624-1793. 

The Principal Speeches of the Statesmen and Orators 

of the French Revolution, 1789 1795. With introductions, notes, etc. By 
H. Morse Stephens. Two volumes. Crown Svo. £1 Is. 

Napoleonic Statesmanship : Germany. By h. a. l. Fisher. 

8vo, with maps. 12s. (>d. net. 

De Tocqueville's L'Ancien Regime et la Rev^olution. 

Edited, with introductions and notes, by G. W. Heaulam. Crown 8vo. (is. 

Documents of the French Revolution, 1789-1791. By 

L. G. Wick HAM hv.c.v.. Oown Svo. Two volumes. 12s. net. 
Thiers' Moscow Expedition, edited.with introductions and notes, by 

H. B. George. Crown 8vo, with 6 maps. 5s. 
Bonapartism. Six lectures by H. A. L. Fisher. Svo. 3s. 6d. net. 



Geography and Anthropology 

Relations of Geography and History. By h. b. George. 

With two maps. Crown 8vo. Third edition. 4s. 6d. 

The Dawn of Modern Geography. By c. R. Beazley. in three 

vohimes. Vol. 1 (to a. d. 900). Vol. II (a.d. 900-1260). 15s. net each. Vol. 
III. 20s. net. 

Regions of the AVorld. Geographical Memoirs under the general 
editorship of H. J. Mackixder. Large 8vo. Each volume contains maps 
and diagrams. 7s. 6d. net per volume. 

Britain and the British Seas. Second edition. By H. J. Mackinder. 
Central Europe. By Johx Partsch. The Nearer East. By D. G. 
Hogarth. North America. By J. Russei.i,. India. By Sir Thomas 
Hor.DiCH. The Far East. By Archibald Little. 

The Face of the Earth (Das Anthtz der Erde). By 

Eduard Suess. Translated by Hertha Sollas. Vols. I, II. 2js. net each. 

The Oxford Geographies. By A. J. Herbertsox. Crown svo. 

Vol. I. The Preliminary Geography, Ed. 2, 72 maps and diagrams. Is. <)d. 

Vol. II. The Junior Geography, Ed. 2, 166 maps and diagrams, 2s. 

Vol. III. The Senior Geography, Ed. 2, with 117 maps and diagrams, 2s. 6d. 

Geography for Schools, by a. Hughes. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. 

Anthropological Essays presented to Edward Blrxe'it Tylor in 
honour of his seventy-fifth birthday; by H. Baliour, A. E. Cuawi.ey, 
• D. J. Cuxxixgham, L. R. Farxell, J. G. Frazer, A. C. Haddox', E. S. 
Harti.axd, a. Laxg, R. R. Mareti-, C. S. Myers, J. L. Mvres, C. H. Read, 
Sir J. Rhys, W. Ridgeway, W. H. R. Rivers, C. G. Selig-aiaxx', T. A. Joyce, 
N. W. Thomas, A. Thomsox-, E. Westtrmarck ; with a bibliography by 
Barbara W. Freire-Marueco. Imperial 8vo. 

The Evolution of Culture, and other Essays, by the late 

Lieut. -Gen. A. Laxe-Fox Piti-Rivers ; edited by J. L. Myres, with an 
Introduction by H. Balfour. Svo, \vith 21 plates, 7s. 6d. net. 

Dubois' Hindu JNIanners, Customs, and Ceremonies. Translated 
and edited with notes, corrections, and biography, by H. K. Beauchajip. 
Third edition. Crown Svo. 6s. net. On India Paper, 7s. 6d. net. 

The INIelanesianS, studies in their Anthropology and Folk-Lore. By 
R. H. Codrixgtox. Svo. 16s. 

Iceland and the Faroes. By n. Axxandale. With an appendix 

on the Celtic Pony, by F. H. A. Marshall. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. net. 

The INIasai, their Language and Folk-lore. By a. c. Holus. 

With introduction by Sir Charles Eliot. Svo. Illustrated. 14s. net. 

Celtic Folklore: Welsh and Manx. By J. Rhys. 2 vols. svo. £i is. 
Studies in the Arthurian Legend. By J. Rhys. svo. 12s. ed. 
The Ancient Races of the Thebaid : an anthropometricai study 

of the Inhabitants of Upper Egypt from the earliest prehistoric times to the 
Mohammedan Conquest, based upon examination of over l.oOO crania. By 
Arthur Thomsox* and D. RAxoALL-^NlAch-ER. Imperial 4to, with 6 collo- 
types, 6 lithographic- charts, and many other illustrations. 42s. net. 

The EarUest Inhabitants of Abydos. (A cranioiogicai study.) 

By D. Rakdall-MacIver. Portfolio. lOs. 6d. net. 



Modern Philosophy 

Bacon's Novum Organum, edited, with introduction, notes, etc. 
by T. Fowler. Second edition. 8vo. 15.s. 

Novum Organum, edited, with notes, by G. W. Kitchix. 
8vo. 9s. 6d. 

Bentham's Introduction to the l*rinciples of Morals and 

Legislation. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 

The Works of George Berkeley, formerly Bishop of Cloyne. With 
prefaces, annotations, appendices, and an account of his Life and Philosophy, 
by A. C. Fkaser. New edition (1901) in crown 8vo. Four volumes. £\ 4s. 

Some copies of the 8vo edition of the Lif<; are still on sale, price 16s. 

Selections from Berkeley, with introduction and notes, for the use of 

Students. By the same Editor. Fifth edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

The Cambridge PlatonistS : being selections from the Writings of 
Benjamin Whichcote, John Smith, and Nathanael Culverwel, with introduc- 
tion by E. T. Cami'agnac. Crown Hvo. 6s. 6d. net. 

Leibniz's Monadology and other Philosophical Writings, translated, 
with introduction and notes, by R. Latia. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. 

I^ocke's Essay concerning Human Understanding. 

Collated and annotated with prolegomena, biographical, critical, and historical, 
by A. C. Eraser. Two volumes. Svo. £1 13s. 

Locke's Conduct of the ITnderstanding. Edited byT. Fowler. 

Extra fcap 8vo. -2s. 6d. 

A Study in the Ethics of Spinoza. By h. h. Joachim, svo. 

lOs. 6d. net. 

Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, reprinted from the original 

edition in three volumes, and edited by L. A. Selhy-Bigge. Second edition. 
Crown 8vo. 6s. net. 

Hume's Enquiry concerning the Human Understanding, 

and an Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals. Edited by L. A. 
Selby-Bigge. Crown 8vo. Second edition. 6s. net. 

British JMoralistS, being Selections from writers principally of the 
eighteenth century. Edited by L. A. Selby-Biggi:. Two volumes. Crown 
Svo. 12s. net. Uniform with Hume's Treatise and Enquiry, and Berkeley's 
Works. I 

Butler's AA'^Orks, edited by W. E. Gi.AnsroNE. Two volumes. Medium 
Svo, lis. each, or Crown Svo, l(»s. 6d. Also, separately — Vol. I (Analogy), 
5s. 6d. Vol. II (Sermons), .5s. 



Recent Philosophy 

The Eogic of Hegel, translated from the Encyclopaedia of the Philo- 
sophical Sciences, with Prolegomena, by W. Wallace. Second edition. 
Two volumes. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. each. 

Hegel's Philosophy of Mind, translated from Encyclopaedia of Philo- 
sophical Sciences, with five introductory essays, by W. Wallack. Crown 9vo. 
lOs. 6d. 

Eotze S IjOgic, in Three Books — of Thought, of Investigation, and of 
Knowledge. Translated by B. Bosakquet. Seconded. 2 vols. Cr. 8vo. 12s. 

Lotze's JNIetaphysic, in Three Books— Ontology, Cosmology, and 
Psychology. Translated b}^ B. Bosavuiet. Seconded. 2 vols. Cr. 8vo. 12s. 

BluntSChli's Theory of the State. Translated from the sixth 
German edition. Third edition, 1901. Crown 8vo, half-bound, 8s. 6d. 

Green's Prolegomena to Ethics. EditedbyA. c. Bradlev. Fifth 

edition, 1906. With a Preface by E. Caird. Crown 8vo. tis. net. 

Types of Ethical Theory, by J. Mariineau. Third edition. Two 
volumes. Crown 8vo. Lis. 

A Study of Religion : its Sources and Contents. By the same 
author. Second edition. Two volumes. Crown 8vo. los. 

The Principles of jNlorals. By T. Fowler and J. M. Wilson. 8vo. 
Us. Also, separately— Part I, 3s. 6d. Part II, 10s. 6d. 

Logic; or, The Morphology of Knowledge. By B. Bosakouet. 

Two volumes. 8vo. £1 Is. net. 

Lectures and Essays on Natural Theology and Ethics. 

By W. Wallace. Edited, with biographical introduction, by E. Caird. 
With portrait. 8vo. 12s, 6d, 

Studies in History and Jurisprudence. By Rt. Hon, J. Bryce. 

1901, 2 vols, 8vo. £1 is. net. 

The Theory of Good and Evil. By h, Rashdall. svo, 2 vols. 

Us. net. 

The Herbert Spencer Lectures. 1900, by Frederic Harrisov. 

8vo, paper covers, 2s. net. 1907. Probability, the Foundation of Eugenics. 
By Francis Galton. Svo. Is. net. 

An Introduction to I >Ogic, By H. W. B. Joseph. Svo. 

Essay on Truth. By H. H. Joachim. Svo. 6s, net 

Elementary Logic 
The Elements of Deductive Logic. By t. Fowler. Tenth 

edition, \dth a collection of examples. Extra fcap 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

The Elements of Inductive Logic. By the same. Sixth edition. 

Extra fcap Svo. 6s. In one volume with Deductive Logic, 7s. fid. 




Bentham's Fragment on Government. Edited by F. c. 

MoxTAGUE. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of ]M orals and 

Legislation. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 6s, 6d. 

Studies in History and .lurLsprudence. By the Right Hon. 

James Bryce. 1901, Two vohimes, 8vo, £1 5s. net. 

The Elements of Jurisprudence. By t, e, Holland, Tenth 

edition, 1906. 8vo, 10s, 6d, 

JiilementS OI Law, considered witli reference to Principles of General 
Jurisprudence. By Sir W. Markby, K.C,I,E. Sixth edition revised, 1905. 
8vo. 12s. 6d, 

Roman Law 
Imperatoris lustiniani Institutionum Libri Quattuor ; 

with introductions, commentary, and translation, by J. B, Moyle. Two 
vohimes, Svo. Vol, I (fourth edition, 1903), 16s, ; Vol, II, Translation 
(fourth edition, 1906), 6s. 

The Institutes of Justinian, edited as a recension of the Institutes 
of Gaius. By T. E. Holland. Second edition. Extra fcap 8vo. 5s. 

Select Titles from the Digest of .Justinian. By t, e. Holland 

and C, L, Shadwell. 8vo, 14s. 

Also, sold in parts, in paper covers : Part I. Introductory Titles. 2s. 6d. 
Part II. Family Law. Is. Part III. Property Law. 2s. 6d, Part IV. 
Law of Obligations. No, 1, 3s. 6d. No. 2. 4s. 6d. 

Gai Institutionum luris Civilis Commentarii Quattuor : 

with a translation and commentary by the late E. Poste, Fourth edition. 
Revised and enlarged by E. A. Whiituck, with an historical introduction 
by A. H. J. Greenidge, Svo, 16s. net. 

Institutes of Roman I^aW, by R, Sohm. Translated by J. C. 
Ledlie : with an introductory essay by E. Grueber. Third edition. 
8vo. 16s. net, 

Infamia ; its place in Roman Public and Private Law, By A. H. J. 
Greenidge. Svo. 10s. 6d. 

Legal Procedure in Ciceros Time. By a. h. j. Greenidge. 

8vo. 2as. net. 

The Roman I^aw of Damage to I'roperty : being a commentary 

on the title of the Digest 'Ad Legem Aquiliam' (ix, 2), with an introdmkion 
to the study of the Corpus lurls Civilis, By E. Grteher. Svo. 10s. 6d. 

Contract of Sale in the Civil Law. By J, B. Moyle. svo. los. 6d. 

The Principles of German Civil I^aw. By Ernest j. Schlsier. 

Hvo. 12s. 6d. net. 



English Law 
Principles of the English Law of Contract, and of Agency in 

its relation to Contract. By vSir W, R. Anson, Eleventh edition. 1906. Hvo. 
10s. 6d. 

Law and Custom of the Constitution. By the same, in two 

volumes, rtvo. 

Vol.1. Parliament. Tiiird edition. ^Out of print.) 
Vol. II. The Crown. Third edition. Part I, 10s. 6d. net. Part II in 

Calendar of Charters and Rolls, containing those preserved in the 

Bodleian Library. 8vo. £1 lis. 6d. 

Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property. 

By Sir K. E. Digbv. Fifth edition. Svo. l-2s. 6d. 

Handbook to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonlc Documents. 
By J. Earle. Crown Svo. 10s. 

Fortescues Difference between an Absolute and a Limited 

jMonarchy. Text re\ised and edited, with introduction, etc, by C. 
Plujuier. 8vo, leather back, l-2s. (id. 

Legislative Methods and Forms. By sirC. p. Ilbert, k.c.s.i. 

1901. 8vo, leather back, Ifis. 

Modern T^and I^aw. By e. Jexks. svo. i5s. 

Essay on Possession in the Common Law. By sir f. 

Pollock and Sir R. S. Whioht. Svo. 8s. 6d. 

Outline of the Law of Property. By t. Raleigh, svo. ts. ed. 

Villainage in England. By P.Vinogbadoff. Svo, leather back, 16s. 

Law in Daily Life. By Rud. von Jhering. Translated with Notes 
and Additions by H. Goidy. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. net. 

Cases illustrating the Principles of the Law of Torts, 

with table of all Cases cited. By F. R. Y. Radcliffe and J. C. Miles. Svo. 
1904. l?s. 

Constitutional Documents 

Select Charters and other illustrations of English Constitutional History, 
from the earliest times to Edward I. Arranged and edited by W. Stlbks. 
Eighth edition. 1900. Crown Svo. 8s. 6d. 

Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents, 

illustrative of the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Edited by G. W. 
Prothero. Third edition. Crown Svo. 10s. 6d. 

Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, selected and 
edited by S. R. Gardiner. Tliird edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. 


International Law 

International Law. By W. E. Hall, Fifth edition by J. B. Atlay. 
1904. 8vo. £1 Is. net. 

Treatise on the Foreign I'owers and Jurisdiction of the 
British Crown. By w. e. Hall. 8vo. los. ed. 

The European Concert in the Eastern Question, a collection 

of treaties and other public acts. Edited, with introductions and notes, by 
T. E. HoLLAXD. 8vo. 12s. 6d. 

Studies in International Law. By t. e. Holland. 8vo. los. ed. 
Gentilis Alberici de lure Belli Libri Tres edidit t. e. 

Holland. Small quarto, half-morocco. £1 Is. 

The Law of Nations. By Sir T. Twiss. Part I. in time of peace. 
New edition, revised and enlarged. 8vo. 15s. 

Colonial and Indian Law 

The Government of India, being a Digest of the statute Law relating 
thereto, with historical introduction and illustrative documents. By Sir C. P. 
Ilkeut, K. C.S.I. Second edition. Svo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. 

British Rule and .Jurisdiction beyond the Seas. By the late 

Sir H. Jexkyxs, K.C.B., with a preface by Sir C. P. Ilbert, and a portrait 
of the author. 190-2. Svo, leather back, 15s. net. 

Cornewall-Lewis's Essay on the Government of Depen- 
dencies. Edited by Sir C. P. Lucas, K.C.M.G. Svo, leather back. Us. 

An Introduction to Hindu and INIahommedan Law for 

the use of students. 1906. By Sir W. Markhy, K.C.I. E. 

Land-Re\'enue and Tenure in British India. By b. h. 

Badex-Pov.ell, CLE. With map. Second edition, revised bj' T. AV. 
HoLDERXEss, C.S.I. (1907.) Crowu Svo. 5s. net. 

I^and-SystemS of British India, being a manual of the Land- 
Tenures, and of the systems of Land-Revenue administration. By the same. 
Three volumes. Svo, with map. £3 3s. 

Anglo-Indian Codes, by WmiLEy Stokes. svo. 

Vol. I. Substantive Law. £1 lOs. Vol. II. Adjective Law. £1 15s. 
1st supplement, 2s. 6d. 2nd supplement, to 1891, 4s. 6d. In one vol., 6s. 6d. 

The Indian Evidence Act, with notes by sir w. Markbv, kx.i.e. 

8vo. 3s. 6d. net (published by Mr. Frowde). 

Corps de Droit Ottoman : un Ilecuell des Codes, Lois, Reglements, 
Ordoimanc-cs et Actes les plus iniportants du Droit Interieur, et d'Etudes 
sur le Droit Coutumier de TEmpire Ottoman. Par George Yolnc;. Seven 
vols. Svo. Cloth, £4 lis. 6d. net; paper covers, £1 ts. net. Parts I (Vols. 
l-III) and II (Vols. IV-VII) can be obtained separately; price jicr i>art, 
in cloth, £2 l?s. 6d. net, in paper covers, £2 12s. 6d. net. 



Political Science and Economy 

Industrial Organization in the IGtli and 17th Centuries. 

By G. Unwin. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. 

Relations of the Advanced and Backward Races of 

Mankind, the Romanes Lecture for 1902. By J. Bryce. 8vo. 2s. net. 

Cornewall- Lewis's Remarks on the Use and Abuse 

of some Political Terms. New edition, with introduction by 
T. Raleigh. Crown 8vo, paper, 3s, 6d. ; cloth, 4s. 6d. 

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Edited by j. E. Thohold 

Rogers. Two volumes. 8vo. £1 Is. net, 

Adam Smitll S Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms. 
Edited vnih introduction and notes by E. Cannax. 8vo. 10s. (id. net. 

Bluntschli's Theory of the State. Translated from the sixth 
German edition. Third edition. 1901. Crown 8vo, leather back, 8s. 6d. 

Co-operative Production. By B. Jones. With preface by A. H. 
Dyke-Acland. Two volumes. Crown 8vo. 15s. 

Elementary Political Economy. By E. Cannan, Fourth edition. 

Extra fcap 8vo, Is. net. 

Elementary Politics. By T. Raleigh. Sixth edition revised. Extra 
fcap Svo, stiff covers. Is. net. 

A Geometrical Political Economy. Being an elementary 

Treatise on the method of explaining some Theories of Pure Economic 
Science by diagrams. By H. Cunynghame, C.B. Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6d. net. 

The Elements of Railway Economics. By w. m. Acworth. 

Crown Svo. Second impression. 2s. net. 

Economic Documents 
Ricardo's Letters to Malthus (1810-1823). Edited by J. Boxar. 

8vo. 7s. 6d. 

Letters to Trower and others (1811-1823). Edited 

by J. Bonar and J. H. Hollander. Svo. 7s. 6d. 

Lloyd's Prices of Corn in Oxford, 1583-1830. 8vo. is. 

The History of Agriculture and Prices in England, 

A.D. 1259-1793. By J. E. Thorold Rogers. 

Vols. I and II (1259-1400). 8vo, 84s. net. 

Vols. Ill and IV (1401-1582). 8vo. 32s. net. 

Vols. V and VI (1583-1702). Svo. 32s. net. 

Vol. VII. In two Parts (1702-1793). Svo. 32s. net. 

Fh'st Nine Years of the Bank of England. By the same. Svo. 

8s. 6d.